By Hellion of Troy on How My Obsession With Furnishing A Future Put Me Nearly $40,000 In Debt

@S. Elizabeth I actually find it even more appalling that she had an excellent education and paid writing opportunities handed to her on a silver platter over and over again, and yet she chooses to fill her head with Pottery Barn images and write this drivel. Who cares about 40k, what a waste of a life. I never thought I'd say this, but I think writing might be toxic for this person, so in love with images and dead to herself.

Posted on November 1, 2013 at 7:15 pm 12

By Alexandra Naughton@facebook on How My Obsession With Furnishing A Future Put Me Nearly $40,000 In Debt

tl;dr spoiled little rich girl whose parents paid her entire tuition discovers she doesn't know how to budget, finds herself 40k in debt, then whines about it in 3,000 words

Posted on November 1, 2013 at 6:15 pm 18

By WorldofSass on bell hooks on Sheryl Sandberg's "Faux Feminism"

Sweet baby deity (where my Carolyn Hax fans at?) this is tiresome. I'll never stop calling myself a feminist, but it's this kind of schoolyard-fight prose -- aggressively dismissive, broadly generalized, not at all sisterly or generous -- that makes me want to opt out of feminist discourse entirely. (Though not so much as to prevent me from commenting here, of course.) "Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged." Uh, no, that's not what Sandberg's definition of feminism is...at all. That's just the point A Hooks needed to get to your point B, which is all she's interested in talking about anyway -- her own, preexisting ideas.

Sandberg's copious research -- taken from actual scientific studies rather than feminist theorists, which Hooks complains about -- forces her to acknowledge that certain gender biases aren't going away anytime soon, such as the fact that both men and women respond negatively to a woman who doesn't "act nice." What she does with that information, which is to basically tell readers, 'Sorry, that's the research, so female workers still kind of need to play nice until they get enough power to not have to,' is the opposite of what Hooks seems to predicate her entire argument on. I'm not saying I agreed with everything in Lean In or that Sandberg doesn't deserve some criticism, but this is just beyond the pale. This is not constructive. Maybe I'm not understanding Hooks' brilliance because I'm unworthy of calling myself a real feminist, but seriously, who enjoys this?? Who out there gets anything from the spectacle of prominent feminists bitch-slapping each other in an endless cycle? Who comes away feeling inspired or proactive from this?

Posted on October 29, 2013 at 11:20 am 8

By packedsuitcase on More Shocking Snack Food News

This was definitely the best part of Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me this weekend, not going to lie.

Posted on August 26, 2013 at 12:10 pm 1

By up cubed on HAIM, "The Wire"

This sounds a bit like Shania Twain to me.(Why??)

Posted on July 29, 2013 at 6:50 pm 1

By fondue with cheddar on "Inside DayGlo: The World's Most Colorful Factory"


Posted on January 11, 2013 at 1:15 pm 13

By I smell burnt toast on The Hummuses of Brooklyn

@noReally I did not know until this moment that I wanted my hummus to be ethereal.

Posted on January 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm 6

By martinipie on Famous People I Thought I Saw on the Street, But It Wasn’t Them at All

Famous Person I Actually Saw And Nearly Peed My Pants Afterward: Stephen Fry walking down Madison Avenue


Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:37 pm 6

By KatieBarTheDoor on Recent Nut News

@olivebee PECANS! Pecans > everything.

I'm Southern, though.

Posted on August 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm 1

By hahahaha, ja. on Recent Nut News

I keep hearing things like "not all calories are the same," but, I mean, the actual unit of energy called a 'calorie' is well-defined. It seems to me that what people mean is that the net caloric intake from a piece of food can vary depending on things like how easy that food is to digest, but isn't that still "calories in = calories out," where in this case we have taken "how much energy the body must expend to digest it" into account under the "calories out" heading? I feel like I am just not understanding. Am I missing something? I could very well be missing something.

Posted on August 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm 1