Category: rant

There’s a beauty product company that’s doing a promotion to encourage the idea that all body types are beautiful. It’s always bothered me, and not because I think that if you fall outside the classic norm you should hate yourself or feel bad about yourself.

What bothers me is that the most important way a woman is to be valued is whether or not she is considered beautiful.

Pretty is not the rent I pay on this earth for occupying the space marked “female”.  I don’t owe the world pretty.   My value in this world isn’t higher because I am pretty or not.  So I don’t need a commerical reassuring me that even though I’m fat, I’m beautiful anyway, as if it’s a pat on the head to reassure me I’m still valuable.   Damn right I’m valuable.  I’m smart.  I have good insights.  I’ve learned things I can teach people.  Hell, when I was a teenager, and frankly considerably better looking than Susan Boyle, if offered the chance to take her looks if it meant her voice went with it, I’d’ve taken it in a red-hot minute.  The fact I don’t sing well has always bothered me more than the fact I’m not movie-star material.

Whether or not I am beautiful is immaterial in the face of what kind of parent I am, how I treat my fellow human beings, whether or not anyone’s lives are going to be enriched from knowing me or not — not how goddamned decorative I am.  I am a living, breathing human being.  The idea that because I’m female I should somehow be ornamental if I want to be valued drives me up a wall.

The message that it’s okay to be fat because you’re still pretty is totally getting it wrong (and yes, there are plenty of fat people who are very attractve, indeed!).  The message should be:  Pretty is a value (and c’mon, pretty is nice to look at), but it’s hardly the only value and certainly not the most important one!

“If there is any kind of Supreme Being, it is up to us to become his moral superior.”  – Lord Havelock Vetinari Unseen Academicals, by Sir Terry Pratchett.

Yeah, I’ve been a little slow off the mark reading the new Pratchett book.  It came out a couple of weeks ago and I’ve only just acquired it.  It was a little startling, therefore that this particular comment appeared that was so in harmony with some things I’ve been thinking during my own Bible study[1].

There’s a passage in Matthew[2] where Jesus is discussing the goodness of the Nature of God.  Ya know, maybe God was good by the standards of the time, but any parent who treated his child like God treated His children would have found himself hauled in front of a court to answer for abusing his kids.

Of course, you always get the Elisha and the Bears[3] comment from we people who are just too horrible and corrupt to understand the goodness of God.  But read the Bible with care and attention.  The book is loaded with similar stories.  My flawed and human parents loved me more than to murder me for making fun of someone’s bald head, just sayin’.

I can’t see that what’s described in the Bible is in any way loving, especially the Christian story.  God set up the game in the first place, so he set it up that someone had to be tortured to death in a nasty way to redeem people for things that God defined as sins in the first place?  I wouldn’t even consider pulling a shell game like that on someone I hated, much less someone I loved.

If there is a God and he’s anything like the Biblical description, he’s vicious, childish and cruel.  This, I’m supposed to worship?  The description of God from the Bible is someone I’d try my best to stay far, far away from and do my best to shield my kids from.

---

[1] Yes, we Godless Heathens dammed to the fires of everlasting torment do study religious texts, too.  Strange, innit?

[2] Matthew 7:9-10 Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?  Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

[3] 2 Kings 2:23-25

I set up my netbook at my desk for the first time since I bought it. I don’t often work from a desk, what can I say? But when I’m studying from a manual to review to teach a class, I like a desk and a good surface to write on. The increased real estate on my working surface is nice, lemme tellya.

I’ve been avoiding turning on the heat, but did briefly this morning before I realized I was being silly.  Yeah, it was 59F and all, but I have a wonderful warm slanket and portable warmers I can heat in the microwave and all that smack.  So, really, I was reacting to a number rather than a comfort level.

I do have the thermostat on 55F, though.  If the temperature drops unexpectedly one night, I’d just as soon not wake up to frozen pipes.  Hypothermia isn’t an issue, as lots of blankets keep one toasty warm in bed.

As a caveat before I start this rant:  Lazy in all its forms exists.  I’m not discounting that.

It is a common thing to find on bodybuilding discussion boards a certain amount of sneering at lazy among those with some truly astonishing physiques.   (I read the “naturals” as steroid-enhanced isn’t my kink).  “You could have a body like this if you were just willing to get up at four every morning to do your cardio and then go to the gym every evening to work on your weights… blah blah blah.  You don’t have it because you’re LAZY.”

Thing is, we all know genetics plays a part in physical activity.  Michael Phelps couldn’t be a great football player.   He’s too skinny.  It would take steroids to put enough mass on him to be able to take being tackled by those enormous linebackers. A professional quarterback, a position that isn’t noted for being particularly massy out on the football field, averages an inch or two shorter than Phelps, but generally outweighs him by about 30 lbs.  That surfboard-flat body, long limbs and paddle-like extremities (which he was born with) are what enabled him to develop after YEARS of dedication his incredible swimming speed and skill.

Yes, you can manipulate your body stats to a degree with some serious time and dedication.  It’s certainly possible.  But after awhile, your final genetic blueprint takes over and you reach the end of what you is physically possible to manipulate –never mind what’s reasonable if you want a life outside of the physical manipulation.   It’s why attaining a certain body look as a moral imperative is idiotic when you look at it logically.

This applies to intellectual attainment, too.   Now, most of the people I interact with on a regular basis are pretty damn smart.  I like discussion — unscrewing the inscrutable, analyzing material, figuring out why.   It would be fair to say that my general social/discussion circle, were their brains bodies, would be at least amateur competitive bodybuilders with a couple zooming past me as (natural, there are no brain steroids yet) Mr. or Ms. Olympia.

Among my social circle, there is a common belief that if you do not think well and fluidly, if you’re poor at thinking outside the box and coming up with a creative solution, if you’ve not amassed by the age of thirty a pretty good knowledge base, and more importantly, learned how to learn, that you’re lazy. Now, remember, lazy does exist.  I had the requisite mental ability to get straight As in any high school.  I think I graduated with something like a 2.81 average and never got straight As until I decided to as an intellectual exercise in a community college.  (It was tedious, but hardly difficult).  So as far as lazy, I’d fit the bill.  I recognize it exists.

I suspect that many people who slap the lazy label on sloppy thinking are like me.  They’re flippin’ smart.  If they aren’t getting something mentally, it’s because they’ve decided not to try.  Can’t?  Don’t be silly!

But as a mental exercise: Imagine that the ability to spot faulty logic or  to think outside of the box is the equivalent of being able to bench press 500 pounds, and you’re in the 99th percentile for bench pressing ability. YOU could do it with ease. Someone in the 75th percentile (well above average) COULDN’T.

Disparity in the ability to REASON, it seems to me, genuinely exists. Like weight training, you can work very hard and fulfill the potential of *your* genetics, but that will still take an overwhelming amount of work that’s difficult for the naturally gifted to grok.

First off, I think PETA’s leadership is crazy.  But, apparently they have enough money to keep a state park open.  I have to wonder what rich nutjobs give these people money.

I’m all for animals under human care being humanely treated.  I also know what it would do to the price of meat.  I’m okay with that, but I’m not struggling as much as some, am a good cook even with vegetarian dishes, and really couldn’t give a damn if domestic species of animals die out or not. Die out, you ask?  If we all went vegan, where would be the incentive to keep these expensive and expensive to care for animals?  Holsteins didn’t evolve in nature, friends, and need specific care.  Many domestic species either can’t survive in the wild or would be damn dangerous to let loose if they can.  Go up against a wild pig unarmed sometime. If you survive, you’ll only do it once.  And I don’t think you’ll feel quite as warm and fuzzy about Wilbur any more.

Have these people ever seen an animal hunt?  For that matter, have they ever really watched cats that they want to rename fish “sea kittens” to produce some kind of emotive response in people?  Cats are sadistic little monsters.  I’ve taken mice away from my cats and put them out of their misery because the squeaking got to be too much for me.  greendalek did the same with a dove, once, because the cat had spent about fifteen minutes crippling it and then toying with it.  It was awful.

I won’t go into the ethics of eating meat, because I’ve not examined the logical arguments for and against. Logical, not emotive.  The poor fuzzy animals approach doesn’t work on me when there are human beings under conditions just as bad if not worse.   I know I feel physically better and healthier when I eat a diet of primarily meat and produce (not grains).  That doesn’t leave much room for the vegan diet.  I realize that doesn’t touch the arguments about a living thing having to die for me to feel energetic and healthy, but I’ll be blunt. People die for those cheap clothes you’re wearing, too.  I find that a bigger concern.

And that’s where it comes down to for me.  While the ecosystem needs to be cared for so we don’t foul our own nest, I do think sentient, thinking beings are more important than non-sentient, thinking beings.  (Hey, hadda throw that in there.  Science fiction fan and all).

I’m a big fan of Terry Pratchett, and today marks a big day in fandom for Pratchett fans — The Glorious 25th of May.   I’ll try to keep out too many spoilers for those of you who want to read Night Watch but haven’t.

Now, as an American, how could I have the gall to celebrate that on today, of all days, Memorial Day?

(You Pratchett fans were there.  This is for people who weren’t).

The Glorious 25th of May is a day of rememberence — not for great and glorious heroes, but for little men who weren’t anything special.   They were losers; they were mostly craven and misfits.

But they did the job that was in front of them. They didn’t do it for glory, reward or anything, but simply did the patient and unassuming duty they’d shouldered.

Friends, ultimately that’s what heroism really is — doing the job that’s in front of you.

Another of my favorite writers talks about this:

“She didn’t give up, Ben; she’s still trying to lift that stone after it has crushed her. She’s a father working while cancer eats away his insides, to bring home one more pay check. She’s a twelve-year-old trying to mother her brothers and sisters because mama had to go to Heaven. She’s a switchboard operator sticking to her post while smoke chokes her and fire cuts off her escape. She’s all the unsung heroes who couldn’t make it but never quit.” — Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein.

On Memorial Day, I don’t think of flags and bugles and glorious charges with great battle cries.  Sure, such things can wring tears from my eyes in a movie, but it’s not the important part and it’s not what I think of when I think of this day.   I think of everyone who patiently does the job that’s in front of him or her — and God knows our military is full of them.

And I do appriciate it that you were there.

Matthew 23

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

I have always found public smugness about one’s religion distasteful.  No, worse than distasteful.

If I had a religion, which I don’t, I’d call that a sin and a particularly nasty one.  I really would.  And by the way, you Pagans who think you’re all cool and not prone to this shit ’cause you’re Pagan?

Naw.  Sorry, I see it there, too.

I have been complaining fairly steadily for the past eight years or so that public schools do not teach writing.  Recently my local paper ran an article about new strategies to teach writing — all of which were fuzzy, and rather appalling, nonsense.   I’ve been grumbling off and on about it for about a week when it finally hit me between the eyeballs this morning the true nature of the problem.

Most people confuse writing with the process of being an artist.  Because of that, teaching writing as a technical skill seems limiting, as if it is killing creativity.

I first ran across this when I was tutoring a fifth grader some years ago¹.  The child did not know what a five paragraph essay was.   My own son, now a teenager, does know.  He knows because it was a format I taught him.  They don’t teach it in the local schools here, either.  The excuse given is that it is too rigid and will not teach children to write well.  What they’re saying is that writing as art is the important thing, so formula is not important.

The problem comes in because there is a certain level of formula to good writing².   There are people who do it intuitively, who are not conscious that they are adhering to a formula.  Many of them are teaching Language Arts to kids, too.    Because they don’t know consciously what it is that they do to write well, there isn’t a hope in hell of teaching it.  Sometimes there’s an air of throwing up the hands, and excuses like, “Oh, he’s science-oriented,” as if this is a reasonable excuse for not being able to write well.  Sometimes there is the mistaken dichotomy between art and science that makes it okay to be bad at writing because one is good at math or vice versa.  I got this as a kid, especially from my father who believed the theories about the art/science dichotomies³.

No, you can’t teach someone to be a great novelist or poet.    What you can do is teach someone to create a logical construction in words. The thing is, if you aren’t a great novelist or a great poet, it’s not the big deal that not being able to write well can be in Real Life.  If you’re a knowledge worker of any sort, and these days, more people are than are not, you need to be able to express yourself clearly in text.

Fortunately, this is a learnable skill.  I’ll hearken back to the Five Paragraph Essay as a classic example of this.  It is simple, it is basic and yes, it follows a very specific structure.  If that bothers you, keep in mind that a sonnet’s structure is simple, basic and formulaic and go read some Shakespeare.  He was considered an adequate writer, if I recall correctly.

For a Five Paragraph Essay, you come up with a premise and three supporting statements.  You express these in the first paragraph, then in the following three paragraphs, you explain the supporting statements.  Then you have a concluding paragraph where you more or less say, “Ha!  See, I proved it!”  This used to be a standard format taught in schools.  Do I ever use it in my own writing?  Yes, actually.  I do.  Professionally.  Nothing I do professionally is a five-paragraph essay when I finish, but when I’m stuck for an idea, I absolutely do write out the premise/three supporting facts outline to get started!  It’s simple.  It’s logical, it’s clear.  It forces you to think clearly and factually, which is quite necessary in business.

And it’s teachable.

You don’t have to throw up your hands in the air that someone has too concrete a mind to get it.  There’s nothing nebulous to “get”.  Entertaining writing might be intuitive.  You do need a voice, a rhythm to your words and a quirky hook.  I’m clueless how I do it, so I’d be clueless to teach it other than to advise people to listen to really good storytellers in the Anansi tradition.  Clear writing, without all the fun and exciting bits, is a learnable skill.

It’s also a pretty necessary one in our age of textual communication.

---

¹My God, the boy was due to graduate from high school last spring!
²Believe it or not, more so in fiction than otherwise. Read any of the great writers. There’s serious structure to what they do.
³I often wonder why he didn’t question this when one of the first things I did when we got a computer was to write a checkbook program in BASIC.