On How We Eat
I thought about the prenatal flavor preference thing when a lady I babysat for remembered with fondness when she decided when her baby was about one-years-old she let him eat a tiny bit of chocolate ice cream. Baby's face lit up like magic had just been invented, like "THIS! THIS is why I'm here!"
Although by this reasoning antacids should be my favoritest food ever.
This was an amazing piece. (And cheers to the Hairpin for really producing some astounding content recently!)
The onus always should be on the older person, position of power person to not do this kind of thing - get into these relationships, etc. Of course when one is a teenager, or even just the student, the thought "no no, I'm totally cool with this! It is definitely what I want!" But who is the adult? Who is the one who really knows how this is going to affect this student for the rest of their life/career/etc? They know, they don't care, and they should be the one maligned for it.
Bwa! And god yes, the 'oh noes I'm totally being a cool bride, nooo issues or worries, everything is just great' except until it all crashes down.
Although at my wedding the bouquet holders were uteri (from http://anycornerofheaven.tumblr.com/post/10323825555/uterus-menstrual-cup-cozy-pattern), close enough to vagina pictures, right?
This was just astounding as an analysis. I've read Jane Eyre a few times over the years, like you as a pre-teen identifying with the spunky young girl and then changing my impression as I got older and re-read. Granted it has been years since I read Jane Eyre but I've always had difficulty parsing out the themes (and how I felt about them) from it, "oh this is a lovely story about an independent young woman!" vs "this is someone choosing between dude one who overbearing and is her boss and ages older than her and has a wife locked in the attic and dude two who loves the idea of her as a pliant missionary wife and ignores everything about who she is!" and now I may just have to re-read this tomorrow with this entire context in mind. Because while I remember the idea of her being in love with Rochester from early on, I breezed by the interplay between them leading up to the wedding, with only snippets of their relationship demonstrating their equality rather than a boss/teenager aspect. I can remember at points thinking "I really just wish she'd stay single instead" and that they only reconcile because of the time period it was written, marriage always being better, you know? But now I have a lovely reason to re-read and give it more thought.
Once again, this was really an excellent piece (and I've read Villette too).
Pretty much, and I mean that as a former stripper/website model - it really isn't a long-term job, it is a job full of much worse feminist compromises than the other service sector work I do now (not considering plastic surgery for one thing!) - for all the "oh no strippers are so self-confident! you learn so much about different kinds of beauty working there!" I learned my managers were racist pricks that were happy to encourage unhealthy dieting and pocket money from working moms for made up offenses. Or to tell women with back or foot problems they'd be fired if they didn't wear the requisite 6" or higher heels. And I worked at a lot of different places. I don't think that if there had been sufficient economic opportunities for 19-year-olds far from home with unemployed live-in boyfriends I would have chosen it. At least for as long, at least putting up with the abuses of so many. And not to say other service jobs don't have lots of abuses, but is that really a good argument for defending the sex industry?
I think that in a world with sufficient opportunities, we'd probably still see burlesque or other displays of sensuality/sexuality that are not money making. It is not that I'm opposed to women being sexual in a public way, but I'm wary of insisting that there's no difference between the sex industry and any other industry, and that feminists should not criticize it or want to see it gone. And I have a feeling that positive changes are going to result in making it much less profitable, which is really something I'm okay with.
On Talking to Heather Doney and Rachel Coleman About Child Abuse, the Quiverfull Movement and Homeschooling Policy Reform
As one of those homeschoolers that was homeschooled not because of religious reasons but because of hippy "schools are the worst places to educate children, they're places to lock down children's minds and get them to accept busywork and being quiet and showing up at the same time with the same bell every day and not be free spirits, man" ideals, it does sadden me to hear of the abusive, frequently bizarrely religious strains of it. I had such a good time! We slept in all the time and had museum days or just cancelled school when the weather was beautiful or we were too distracted by other things and could make up our own assignments and learn in ways that made sense to us for each kid. We could use all those educational computer games all day if we wanted. You didn't have to read what everyone else wanted to read, or write about what everyone needed to write about, and if your one math book was terrible you didn't have to suffer, you could get a different one. And we knew those Other Homeschooler Families peripherally, sure, any time you went to a public homeschooler event you had the ones who cared more about if their kids only knew kingdom in reference to the Kingdom of Heaven and not from biology, or that cared more if their teenage girls were "pure" rather than knew what a verb was. They are not insignificant population of homeschoolers.
But, no, I can't quite get on board with the standardized testing and portfolios. Everyone I knew who had to take standardized tests as part of public school hated them and hated being held up by them, and eventually when some of them became adults and teachers hated administering them and teaching to the exam. And homeschoolers I knew who had to do portfolios stressed over them "does this demonstrate enough math? Is this grade-appropriate grammar worksheets? Did we document enough hours last month?" which kind of went against their ideals for child-directed learning. So I can't quite get behind that aspect. Otherwise, definitely on board with the other requests and would be interested in how more research goes.
From Hatcher (Contraceptive Technology) risks in perspective:
Mortality risk per year while
skydiving: 1 in 1000
automobile accident: 1 in 2,900
struck by lightening: 1 in 2,000,000
non-smoker age 16-34 using a combined oral contraceptive: 1 in 1,667,000
smoker age 35-44: 5,200
undergoing tubal ligation: 1 in 66,700
experiencing pregnancy: 1 in 6,900
legal surgical abortion at <8 weeks: 1 in 142,900
So, relatively, safe. Even if you're saying the risk should really be 1.5 or 2 per 1,677,000 (for Nuvaring vs combined pills). Tylenol and ibuprofen can also be deadly for some, even in patients without known risk factors but especially with certain risk factors (which you may or may not known about before taking, such as a hereditary liver condition). And I'd be certain that if I posted on the internet about the studies on tylenol I'd see dozens of comments about how it nearly killed them or someone they know. And certainly, while blood clots CAN be deadly, they are also not necessarily deadly either.
And not to disparage people wanting to go non-hormonal, by all
means, go for it. A large portion of the reason condoms and diaphragms fail is because while couples report using them, they're used "mostly" - sometimes they sit in a drawer or on a store shelf un-bought and then surprise, pregnancy. I used condoms exclusively for two years prior to getting insurance and have no problem with them.
But I love my Implanon, which will be changed to a Nexplanon next year, and I'll use until menopause unless there is some more definite reason I need to change.
To address points above:
The Paraguard is not used very often because of heavier periods and difficult insertion (Mirena and Skyla have fancy, easy to use applicators, Paraguard has a stupid one - thus can be a case of "well I don't prefer them ... how about a Mirena instead?") - when women come in wanting to discuss birth control and I tell them one uses no estrogen, 80% of women have no periods after six months, and it lasts for 5 years vs one that is completely hormone free, will very likely give them heavier periods but lasts for ten? They want the one with little to no periods, usually.
I'm more with harrumph over here, yep, all of these things are naughty child things and would totally have gotten me punished as a kid. But I did things like that and similar. Probably at guest's houses, making them upset and embarrassing my mom. I remember lots of times having kids over that chased the cats/threw them in the bathtub/put them outside and they were indoor-only etc. I remember being the kid as the guest that ruined the good towels with fingerpaints and shutting a dog in a room which caused the dog to freak out and scratch the shit out of the door so it had to be replaced. Knocked over pictures (whee broken glass!) and spilled things and got cheetos into the carpet and handprints on the walls/doors.
Which is not to say I'm not on the side of the LW never having these kids in her house again, or any other ones, oh well if you have extra bedrooms/bathrooms - tough, obviously not worth your sanity.
However, this whole "omigod I don't have kids but I would never have acted this way and these kids will grow up horribly" freakout is just unwarranted. Pretty sure the rate of horrible adults is not completely contingent upon hellion vs. perfect children and their relative lack of discipline.
Plus, I think that when one is a guest with a child you get kind of thrown off in the "how to discipline" - do you scream obscenities at them? Spank them? What if the time out corner has nice things in it? Do you threaten to take them home, which they'd probably like? Yeah yeah, that they ignored it is bad and all, but I have a mild amount of sympathy if they don't normally go anywhere to be a little thrown by how to discipline their kid around someone who doesn't have kids and goes on and on about the breakdown of society due to lack of discipline and how SENSITIVE parents are these days.
Oh shoop, I remember sobbing one day that it wasn't that I didn't love him, it was that I wanted things to change and they never did (like durrrrh, why would they? only every single one of my friends told me they never would, he'd never made any permanent changes up until that point why would it start?) he'd get a job and quit in a few months, he'd start classes to work towards his goal and then dropped out when they were hard, he'd start an art project with friends and let it fizzle in a month or so. He'd promise that since he was working 10 hours a week and I was working 50 he'd take care of all the chores, until every dish and utensil in the house was dirty and the car was out of gas and the only food we had was cereal without milk. Although finally after arguing about whether or not he was actually doing anything countless times and trying to work on problems and it going nowhere, the only way I finally got rid of him was to say I didn't love him anymore. And I have a difficult time, even now, being really sure it was love or the security I brought that made him fight the break-up. After all, I was apparently so antithetical to his ideals, why stay with me? And it was true that after ages of that a lot of the love had been worn away it wasn't because I had no feelings for him or loved someone else, it was truly because I was so tired of being the only adult in the relationship and couldn't stand it anymore.
Ugh, I feel like this is kind of me years ago, when I had a boyfriend for yeaaarrrss who would have supposedly have been happy to live out of a van and wasn't into commercialism (also didn't have a bank account! lived with mom and dad not because he didn't have a full-time job but because they liked spending money on fun things instead!) and why do you want me to kill myself with self-hatred in the corporate machine? and so on and on, but you know was also happy to let his girlfriend pay for van repairs and dinners out with friends and vet bills and ya know, everything. Not that I was making tons more, what with being in school full-time, but actually had life together so would work extra over-time on school breaks and did both our taxes every year and make sure that our utility bills were correct.
Then later I dated someone who didn't make much money but could function as an adult with little money, as opposed to someone who, despite insisting otherwise, essentially wanted a substitute parent to manage their life and let them never grow up out of sheer delight in their company.
If your "scrub"-y guy is the former (functional adult with little money), it is still entirely legitimate to feel concerned that you know, you'd kind of like some assurance you'll have a comfortable life with them. But you may feel that the least comfortable life is the one without them, and fancy things aren't really worth it in comparison - so what if you can't go on vacation once a year and never own a new car? Maybe having each other every day is better.
On the other hand, if he is the other specimen, RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!! The manic pixie dream boy is not long-term dating material.