![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenThis is the second day in a row where my sole responsibility has been the freezer. Yesterday, it was defrosting. Today, it's re-freezing and eventually restocking. I am bored. So, I'm reading. Shocker of shockers, it's not all TWoP recaps (that was this morning).
The Benefits of Busy
My reaction is short and simple: HORSESHIT. This magazine has a shorter attention span than my kittens. Two weeks ago they had a cover page article about how kids are overtaxed with schoolwork. Now there's this short blurb about how kids aren't actually overburdened with after-school activities (i.e. the "Parents, don't torture yourselves--your kids really do like having thirty hours a week of rec sports and piano lessons" article). No shit, Sherlock. Maybe it's because from kindergarten these kids have had homework? I'm not saying that a kid shouldn't have a few hobbies, but trying to console parents who push their kids into every after-school activity they can afford is BULLSHIT.
*****
Give me a good reason this wasn't the cover article this week, Newsweek.
Is it because former soldiers having severe cases of PTSD made worse by the situation in Iraq aren't as sell-friendly as a photographer's retrospective? Are you actually so terrified of being called a liberal rag for talking about the psychological damage of war that is taking its toll on thousands of American soliders--past and present--that you'll sideline them to do a "Happy happy!" article on Annee LeiboVitz? Look, she's fantastic, but her work belongs on your cover or as a beautiful part of an incisive article (I can't imagine anything more devastating to the pro-war chickenhawks than an analogous photo of the destruction in Iraq to the one she's got of the bicycle in Bosnia).
This article deserves more attention. Honor Our Soldiers means nothing if you don't pay attention to the problems they face as mentioned (all too briefly) here.
*****
And one from a blog, naturally.
I think the most profound line in the entire post is this one:
"The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence."
I need to go over the link that's from more directly, but I think you can sum up most of the argument with this--GASP--logical idea: Do not interpret as physiological what can be explained as psychological....bitches.
Given the length of my average LJ post, I am obviously one of those talkative bitches who mean, sexist prigs would love to be able to tell to shut up. I probably do tilt the scales to the 7,000 words a day (if you include the written ones) and up. And I'm not even that pissed off about this exposed indoctrination of male privilege that extends to speech itself; there are plenty of other arenas whereby if a woman is given equal time to a man, there is the perception that she is being given more because the relative is not to man but to nothing.
I could rant about that for ages, but really the sexism angle and the pathetic attempt to stereotype woman as nattering harridans based on specious "evidence" deserves no such attention when it has been done better (do read that post, it's excellent). I was more provoked by the idea of domination in conversation, the idea that the pause or lull has different value (or, conversely, meaninglessness) in various cultures, and where to place boundaries in conversation of tolerance for what is, essentially, rudeness. That will curve around again to sexism, but I want to investigate communication and polite conversation first.
I know in conversation, I interrupt people all the time. I've recently tried to correct it, but in a large group, I find myself (as most of you have no doubt, and I apologize, experienced) just shouting louder and barging in more. People who are inclined not to take offense and cede the guiding of the conversation always make me feel slightly guilty (my friend theKathy often gets interrupted, and I have been trying to go, "No, sorry, you go ahead," because in addition to being rude, I often cause her to forget where she was going when I interrupted). I never took gender into play with it--I'll fight to speak and be heard whether I'm talking with the equally chatty boys and girls I know, as, I think,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ivy03 and bigscary both know well.
There's a real phenomenom that I find best summed up by, of all things, this exchange in Fight Club:
Narrator: When they think you're dying, people listen--they really listen to you instead...
Marla: Instead of just waiting for their turn to speak.
That's what I've got, what a lot of people got. I know I need to listen better, but the urge to seize upon something you heard and like and run with it is very strong. It showcases what you know a lot about or feel passionate about, and you don't want to wait until the speaker finishes naturally because what if you lose your train of thought? What if you can't bring it up again at the end because it's no longer the subject under discussion?
And so I wonder what brings me to this impulse? Why am I never remembering any feelings of shame about speaking too much (which is quite different from being rude and speaking over or interrupting)? Perhaps there's the very basic social constuct of the family coming into play, whereby I was one in a household of up to seven people, which meant plenty of others to bounce noises off of and to shout over. Maybe my parents' egalitarian method of raising us--there were no favorites based on gender with anyone except my maternal grandmother (who treated my brother like a prince for being her only grandson, and boy did we make him pay for that in teasing)--that means I was rasied to think and speak as a person rather than as a girl or a boy specifically ought to. I tend to be shy for a bit in strange company, and I won't volunteer ideas or opinions if uncertain of my audience, but I'm fairly locquacious (and LJ has made this worse) even if only out of nerves (as is the case with strangers, and hence my lack of filters at times).
What, then, since I don't know, are kids taught is right or wrong for a girl or a boy to say or how much to speak? Why, in the tests cited by the post, do people perceive women talking 50/50 with men as women talking too much? I read the anecdotal bits at the bottom. I was amazed at the brassy woman who basically called people rude to their faces when they interrupted her, but I found the story of people just interrupting each other regardless of gender more to be what I associate with as the norm. Growing up fairly, being taught always to share, these things make taking too much or asking for too little strange to me, I guess.
Good read, that last one. Made the old rusty wheels cogitate a bit, even as I'm going blind from doing nothing but read my computer screen for two days straight at work now...
The Benefits of Busy
My reaction is short and simple: HORSESHIT. This magazine has a shorter attention span than my kittens. Two weeks ago they had a cover page article about how kids are overtaxed with schoolwork. Now there's this short blurb about how kids aren't actually overburdened with after-school activities (i.e. the "Parents, don't torture yourselves--your kids really do like having thirty hours a week of rec sports and piano lessons" article). No shit, Sherlock. Maybe it's because from kindergarten these kids have had homework? I'm not saying that a kid shouldn't have a few hobbies, but trying to console parents who push their kids into every after-school activity they can afford is BULLSHIT.
Give me a good reason this wasn't the cover article this week, Newsweek.
Is it because former soldiers having severe cases of PTSD made worse by the situation in Iraq aren't as sell-friendly as a photographer's retrospective? Are you actually so terrified of being called a liberal rag for talking about the psychological damage of war that is taking its toll on thousands of American soliders--past and present--that you'll sideline them to do a "Happy happy!" article on Annee LeiboVitz? Look, she's fantastic, but her work belongs on your cover or as a beautiful part of an incisive article (I can't imagine anything more devastating to the pro-war chickenhawks than an analogous photo of the destruction in Iraq to the one she's got of the bicycle in Bosnia).
This article deserves more attention. Honor Our Soldiers means nothing if you don't pay attention to the problems they face as mentioned (all too briefly) here.
And one from a blog, naturally.
I think the most profound line in the entire post is this one:
"The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence."
I need to go over the link that's from more directly, but I think you can sum up most of the argument with this--GASP--logical idea: Do not interpret as physiological what can be explained as psychological....bitches.
Given the length of my average LJ post, I am obviously one of those talkative bitches who mean, sexist prigs would love to be able to tell to shut up. I probably do tilt the scales to the 7,000 words a day (if you include the written ones) and up. And I'm not even that pissed off about this exposed indoctrination of male privilege that extends to speech itself; there are plenty of other arenas whereby if a woman is given equal time to a man, there is the perception that she is being given more because the relative is not to man but to nothing.
I could rant about that for ages, but really the sexism angle and the pathetic attempt to stereotype woman as nattering harridans based on specious "evidence" deserves no such attention when it has been done better (do read that post, it's excellent). I was more provoked by the idea of domination in conversation, the idea that the pause or lull has different value (or, conversely, meaninglessness) in various cultures, and where to place boundaries in conversation of tolerance for what is, essentially, rudeness. That will curve around again to sexism, but I want to investigate communication and polite conversation first.
I know in conversation, I interrupt people all the time. I've recently tried to correct it, but in a large group, I find myself (as most of you have no doubt, and I apologize, experienced) just shouting louder and barging in more. People who are inclined not to take offense and cede the guiding of the conversation always make me feel slightly guilty (my friend theKathy often gets interrupted, and I have been trying to go, "No, sorry, you go ahead," because in addition to being rude, I often cause her to forget where she was going when I interrupted). I never took gender into play with it--I'll fight to speak and be heard whether I'm talking with the equally chatty boys and girls I know, as, I think,
ivy03 and bigscary both know well.There's a real phenomenom that I find best summed up by, of all things, this exchange in Fight Club:
Narrator: When they think you're dying, people listen--they really listen to you instead...
Marla: Instead of just waiting for their turn to speak.
That's what I've got, what a lot of people got. I know I need to listen better, but the urge to seize upon something you heard and like and run with it is very strong. It showcases what you know a lot about or feel passionate about, and you don't want to wait until the speaker finishes naturally because what if you lose your train of thought? What if you can't bring it up again at the end because it's no longer the subject under discussion?
And so I wonder what brings me to this impulse? Why am I never remembering any feelings of shame about speaking too much (which is quite different from being rude and speaking over or interrupting)? Perhaps there's the very basic social constuct of the family coming into play, whereby I was one in a household of up to seven people, which meant plenty of others to bounce noises off of and to shout over. Maybe my parents' egalitarian method of raising us--there were no favorites based on gender with anyone except my maternal grandmother (who treated my brother like a prince for being her only grandson, and boy did we make him pay for that in teasing)--that means I was rasied to think and speak as a person rather than as a girl or a boy specifically ought to. I tend to be shy for a bit in strange company, and I won't volunteer ideas or opinions if uncertain of my audience, but I'm fairly locquacious (and LJ has made this worse) even if only out of nerves (as is the case with strangers, and hence my lack of filters at times).
What, then, since I don't know, are kids taught is right or wrong for a girl or a boy to say or how much to speak? Why, in the tests cited by the post, do people perceive women talking 50/50 with men as women talking too much? I read the anecdotal bits at the bottom. I was amazed at the brassy woman who basically called people rude to their faces when they interrupted her, but I found the story of people just interrupting each other regardless of gender more to be what I associate with as the norm. Growing up fairly, being taught always to share, these things make taking too much or asking for too little strange to me, I guess.
Good read, that last one. Made the old rusty wheels cogitate a bit, even as I'm going blind from doing nothing but read my computer screen for two days straight at work now...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 08:50 pm (UTC)This is why I surround myself with people who talk just as much. You may interrupt, honey, but I honestly don't notice it and I interrupt just as much. You should have been at lunch today when
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 08:53 pm (UTC)I've never talked myself hoarse, so you win there. I've definitely written myself cramped, though. I tend to mess up what I'm saying less when I write it down, which is why I never did debate.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 09:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 11:27 pm (UTC)David Brooks is a no-talent assclown whose ideas on gender make me want to castrate him. Do you remember his obscenely offensive article back in January (discussed very smartly here about how women are just plain happier when they stay at home?
P.S. Annie Leibovitz is still awesome.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-28 04:07 am (UTC)And yes, she's still really talented. But there are photo magazines that would kill for her spread and story, and this just didn't need to take up a major publication that ought to be focusing on things more important than what one celebrity is doing.