social commentary – Page 7 – Life in the Cheese Drawer

potential or satisfaction

March 2, 2015 kate Comments 2 comments

i worked at the writing center at st. ben’s, which was run by a lovely woman who probably couldn’t point me out of a lineup now or remember my name. (but that’s neither here nor there.) she would tell us a lot about her kids and what they were doing with their lives. her youngest was my age.
one time she mentioned that, while all her kids could have gotten english majors and been excellent at it, most of them went into a science field or other STEM. why? because it was something they weren’t necessarily good at, and they wanted the challenge.
recently i was talking with someone, and she mentioned her high school age son was thinking of become a nurse or physician assistant. she asked him why not go all out and become a doctor? he explained that he didn’t want to work 80-hour weeks and go through all the schooling; sure, the money would be nice, but isn’t having a life outside of work nice too? He then showed her services like those offered at the CDPAP Agency New York and expressed his interests for such work.
i could have become a doctor if i wanted to; i have no doubt that the potential was there. i could have taken science classes instead of the “easy” way out with my liberal studies degree and writing minor. i could have pursued engineering or computer science (i actually took three days of CS classes). but would any of that have made me as happy as the plan i did take? i doubt it. sure, i could be rolling in the dough at this point, but at what cost? work stress that leaks into my personal life? work weeks that bleed into my precious daylight hours? i enjoy my job (for the most part) and i doesn’t stress me out at home (for the most part).
(i think the only STEM i would have considered in college was environmental studies.)

so while on some level i agree with the quote to pursue any goal, job, life, or anything someone has said no to, but i think there’s an addendum. only do it if you want to and it will make you happy. why waste time pursing something just because you can and are able – pursue it if it will make you happy and/or fulfilled (that includes maybe some unpleasant middle to get to the happy end).

the case for feminism

January 17, 2015 kate Comments 5 comments

i’ve noticed a backlash against feminism lately, and a google image search for feminism brings up quite a few photos of women holding signs saying “i don’t need feminism because…”. many female celebrities have come out saying they aren’t feminists. for some reason, the word itself has become a dirty word. pre-conceived notions of bra burners during the 60s and women voicing ideas that put men on a lower level than women in a very public way are really all people are seeing as feminists. so women are distancing themselves.
the definition of feminism is pretty simple: “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” if using this definition, then the women who want to be in a higher rights bracket than men are not really feminists; they’re pro-matriarchal society.

thank you, emma, for coming out recently as a feminist in a very public way.

the first time i really really understood the concept of feminism was in college; going to a liberal arts all-women’s school that had a partnership with an all-men’s school will do that to you. i was in my first year in a 100-level english class, and the professor was a nun who wore a pin that said “women should be priests” on a daily basis. here’s what she said:
“feminism means believing women are people too.”
i think that’s something everyone can get behind. are you a feminist? here are some clues.
do you think little girls and boys can be anything they want to be in the world? yes? surprise! you’re a feminist.
if you’re a woman, do you think your ideas and thoughts are just as important as that dude’s over there? surprise! you’re a feminist.
do you think men should have an equal chance at getting child support when custody battles come up? surprise! you’re a feminist.
do you support women who want to stay at home as well as women who want to be surgeons or president? surprise! you’re a feminist.
do you support men who want to stay home as well as men who want to be surgeons or president? surprise! you’re a feminist.
do you think it’s weird that nobody questions men on whether or not their careers are affecting their family life? surprise! you’re a feminist.
are you happy women can vote? surprise! you’re a feminist.
do you like men? do you like women? do you like transgenders? surprise! you’re a feminist!
you can see where this is going.

madonna - just a humanist. — madonna – just a humanist.

lots of people say, well, i’m really a humanist, not a feminist. i believe in equality for everyone. here’s why feminism is a better term for this. as a man, saying you are humanist, you’re already clumped in that group and don’t have to think about changing your ways. you figure, well, i’m treated equally, so i don’t have to worry about anyone else. by using the term feminism, it forces the other gender to stop and take a moment to think about how women are being treated and hopefully try to effect change.
so here’s my pitch at getting behind the feminist term. when you think of kate, do you think feminist? probably not, but i am. feminists come in all forms. if you think both genders should be treated on an equal basis at all levels, then you’re a feminist.
are you ready to admit it?

an introvert's lament

August 12, 2014 kate Comments 0 Comment

i was just beat after work today. i had a meeting a 9 a.m. followed by pictures with some very energetic athletes from 11:30 a.m.-2 p.m., after which i promptly went to a meeting for another hour and a little bit. i got home and was just exhausted.
no doubt; i am an introvert through and through.
over the years, i’ve become more acutely aware of how difficult it is to be an introvert, especially in the workplace, but one thing that’s been a huge positive boon for the average introvert: the internet. finally, there is a public method of communication just tailored for the common introvert.
like fellow introverts*, i much prefer the written word to the spoken word when it comes to communicating with others i’m not 100% comfortable with. when i ‘m writing an email or forum post or facebook post, it’s much easier for me to put into words what’s in my head than it is for those words to make their way out of my mouth. this is not to say i can’t form a coherent sentence; i am more than capable. but in any sort of confrontational situation, i am more likely to spout out facts and figures rather than my opinion on a matter.
i have STRONG opinions, but if i’m talking with someone in some sort of position of power of me, i’m not going to rock the boat; i’m not going to risk stumbling over my words and thoughts and having an incoherent mess come out of my mouth (my family, friends, and close coworkers have heard their fair share of mouthmess at this point!). i don’t like confrontation to begin with, and to have to stand in front of someone with opposing views and try to get my brain to organize my flying, rapidfire thoughts into words? terrifying.
but, you put me in front of a keyboard or piece of paper? i have time to gather, formulate, and articulate exactly what my brain wants me to say. i can handle confrontation in this way. i prefer communication this way. so you can see why the surge of written-word communication methods that are available on the internet is such a huge leap for the common introvert. unlike before, now we have an EASY way of bringing thoughts, concerns, issues, and complaints to others in a medium with which we are comfortable. FINALLY, sighed every introvert ever.
what’s distressing, however, is that often the way we prefer to communicate is seen as the coward’s way out. we are told we’re hiding behind the internet – behind our avatars. if we really want to effect any sort of change, why are we communicating this way? just go to the source in person and talk to them. face to face.
i have confronted extroverted bosses before in my life, and it’s terrifying and beyond exhausting. i would rather have written them an email, but they prefer face to face. extroverts may have no problem with this, and it’s really a shame that extroverts don’t understand how difficult it is for an introvert to just show up for an unplanned debate where anything might be said without forethought. it’s scary. and we are probably not going to do it unless it’s going to save our cats from being kidnapped and held for ransom.
we finally found an easy way to express ourselves, and we’re dismissed. we’re trying to be heard, yet our preferred way to opine is seen as trivial. a section of our society finally feels like it has a voice, yet it’s told it’s not important because it’s on the internet.
this has to change. i’m ready to write my strongly worded letter.
*i realize some introverts may prefer face to face. disclaimer here for that.

#yesallwomen … but

June 25, 2014 kate Comments 0 Comment

here’s a slight beef i have with the bunch of recent calls to draw attention to the rape culture, #yesallwomen, and a call for women to be able to wear whatever they want (ALL OF WHICH I AGREE WITH):
people are sexual beings.
i know; it’s a hard concept to grasp.
i agree that if it’s hot outside, ladies should be able to wear whatever they like without drawing attention to themselves. BUT.
but, to teach boys that girls are not sexual objects? that’s like trying to teach people that they don’t need water. (asexuals aside – sorry asexuals i may offend.)
i am not condoning that shorts and sleeveless tops be banned in schools – i think that’s ludicrous. but i will argue that most high school girls know when what they’re wearing will attract the attention of the opposite sex. besides, how many times do high school girls go to football games to take a gander at the players’ tight pants? i don’t see tight football pants being banned anytime soon. that’s a double standard if i ever saw one. a recent news phenomenon case in point: the good-looking felon in the news recently.
i am not defending cat calls, lewd gestures, rapists, any of that. i understand that when women are the ones catcalling, men (generally) don’t feel threatened because they don’t have the pervasive fear of assault that most women are able to claim. physically, men will generally be able to overpower women and do what they’d like, whereas women can’t claim the same.
but perhaps instead of separating people from their sexual sides, how about teaching everyone that all people deserve respect? how about instead of saying “no, you can’t be attracted to that person”, say “you can be attracted to that person, but if s/he doesn’t reciprocate the feeling or aren’t ok with your gestures, keep it to yourself and respect his/her decision.”
ultimately, i think our puritanical view towards sex in the country is really contributing a lot toward this. slut-shaming is definitely a thing, and if we could move past the fact that women have sex for fun and because it’s nice and it doesn’t matter how many, with whom, or how often, then i think we could take a step in the right direction. quit judging and start respecting others’ decisions.

i quit

June 5, 2014 kate Comments 3 comments

there has been some brouhaha on twitter regarding a lovely slate article that says adults should be embarrassed to read young adult novels.
“These are the books that could plausibly be said to be replacing literary fiction in the lives of their adult readers. And that’s a shame.”
you know what’s a shame? that it took me 3 weeks to read 50 pages of infinite jest because i canNOT get into that book. i have tried. it does nothing for me. that i cannot read anything written prior to 1900 because it just bores me to tears. literary fiction authors i do like? steinbeck and hemingway. o’brien. they write short sentences.
“Most importantly, these books consistently indulge in the kind of endings that teenagers want to see, but which adult readers ought to reject as far too simple. YA endings are uniformly satisfying, whether that satisfaction comes through weeping or cheering.”
what is wrong with a satisfying ending? i hate that most stephen king novels are on the edge of unsatisfying at their ends. i gave “gone girl” 4 stars instead of 5 because of the crappy ending. i loved that “the goldfinch” actually managed to pull off a plausible, satisfying ending. on the other end, “the book thief” (YA) had a pretty unsatisfying ending. my mom does not read any book that doesn’t have a happy ending. she says, why waste her time.
“But mature readers also find satisfaction of a more intricate kind in stories that confound and discomfit, and in reading about people with whom they can’t empathize at all. “
the only book i gave away because i hated it was because i hated every single character in the book. (the memory keeper’s daughter.) i have told people to stay away from it. now, there is something to be said for intricacies; “gone girl” is miles ahead of “divergent” when it comes to intricacies, and my brain likes to make the connections as they come. i could also argue that “looking for alaska”, YA, is more intricate than the “wool” series (adult novels) or a whole slough of romance novels.
the author lambasts “the fault in our stars” throughout the article because that’s the big movie coming out based on a YA novel. apparently she read it (probably against her will), and thought it was neat, trite, and eye-roll-inducing.
in the spirit of john green*, i leave her this: “When adults say, ‘Teenagers think they are invincible,’ with that sly, stupid smile on their faces, they don’t know how right they are. We need never be hopeless, because we can never be irreparably broken. We think that we are invincible because we ARE. We cannot be born, and we cannot die. Like all energy, we can only change shapes and sizes and manifestations. They forget that when they get old. They get scared of losing and failing.”
*author of TFioS, whose books i started reading while he was still underground. i’m hipster, y’all.
EDIT: OMG how could i forget to mention the MOST DISAPPOINTING ENDING TO A BOOK EVER, and it was a YA novel – mockingjay. take that, boring slate author.

what's in a name?

April 2, 2014 kate Comments 2 comments

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;”
-Juliet
“The only three things a guy should want change to about his girl is her last name, address, and her viewpoint on men.”
-kid cudi [whoever he is]

it’s hard for me to articulate exactly why i kept my last name instead of changing it to match nate’s. part of me loves my last name; part of me thinks it’s an archaic tradition; part of me thinks it’s unnecessary and there are really baseless reasons to change it. and then there’s the whole gender equality thing on top of all that. it’s really an amalgam of reasons in my head.
today one of my friends on fb (more like acquaintance) asked what people would start calling her once her name changes, since they use her last name to address her. someone commented she could keep it, and she replied, ” I know I can. I just consider it an honor that he wants to share his with me.”
to which i wonder: would he consider it an honor if she wanted to share HER last name with HIM?
(my guess is no. some guys are horrified at the thought of taking their wives-to-be last names.)
but first, i’d like to explore the archaicness, the absolute medievalness of the term MAIDEN NAME.

maiden (adj.) “virgin, unmarried,” c.1300, from maiden (n.). The figurative sense of “new fresh, first” (cf. maiden voyage) is first recorded 1550s. Maiden name is from 1680s.

maid (n.) late 12c., “a virgin, a young unmarried woman,” shortening of maiden (n.). Like that word, used in Middle English of unmarried men as well as women (cf. maiden-man, c.1200, used of both sexes, reflecting also the generic use of man). Domestic help sense is from c.1300. In reference to Joan of Arc, attested from 1540s (cf. French la Pucelle). Maid Marian, one of Robin Hood’s companions, first recorded 1520s, perhaps from French, where Robin et Marian have been stock names for country lovers since 13c. Maid of Honor (1580s) originally was “unmarried lady of noble birth who attends a queen or princess;” meaning “principal bridesmaid” is attested from 1895. Maydelond (translating Latin terra feminarum) was “the land of the Amazons.”

a couple takeaways: maiden is a term from 1300. maiden name is from 1680. in 1200, unmarried men were known as maiden-man. why don’t men have a pre-marriage label these days while women still do? we don’t call young men “master” anymore. so really, not too far off from being medieval.
i propose we strike maiden name and start using first lastname. using maiden name just conjures up visions of showing up on a doorstep with 12 cows and a bag of gold after an arrangement made by two fathers, never to see her family again. women were property! we are no longer property, so why do we continue to use terms that harken back to that?
ok. this is going to be extremely disjointed, only because my thoughts are so disjointed about this subject.
it’s assumed that women will assume their husbands-to-be last names. society expects it; little girls dream of it; high school crushes scribble it (guilty!). only eight percent of women keep their last names these days compared to 23% in the 90s , according to one article. another states that 35% are keeping their last names. what? let’s get the numbers straight here people. both articles were written in 2013 – perhaps a more aggregated and random national sample should be polled. but the article with the 35% had a good point – people are getting married later in life and establishing an adult identity well before getting married.
next point: “it’s just a name.” i had a friend’s wife say that to me. “i’m still me. i’ll still be XXX, but it’s just a name.” ok, so juliet had her say, but if it’s just a name, WHY CHANGE THE ONE YOU HAVE?
i have heard some weird stuff regarding last name changings. one, working in kmart. a coworker was wondering why some celebrity still goes by her maiden name when she was married to another celebrity. oh, he mused, maybe it says it on the marriage certificate and she just goes by her other name. the thought NEVER crossed his mind that she may have kept her last name.
next point (see? disjointed as crap!): if women are happily willing to change their names, go through the short-term trouble of getting name changes sorted out, and men in general aren’t… what does that say about men and marriage? why are women willing to change for men but not vice versa? (i know; i know; there are some men out there who are willing to change – my cousin was. there are some men out there who just don’t care – like nate – but i’d be willing to bet that most men out there are like “uh, no way i’m changing my name. you have to change yours.”) does it just “confirm” that women are the weaker sex? why should i be expected to change my name while men won’t even consider it?
another point: ok, so some ladies out there really do have crappy last names, and i can understand wanting to get rid of a beast when the getting’s good – one of my friends has a very long polish last name. understandable she’d want to drop that. olson? smith? nelson? brown? i’d probably change it.
point: kids. ok, ok, so you’re having kids and you want the kids to all have the same last name and you want to be a family. why is the name thing such a huge ordeal? there are so many split families and different last names out there as it is, that i wouldn’t think it would be that huge of a deal these days to have a mom whose last name is different that that of the kids she’s picking up.
point: i feel like when a person changes her last name, it’s like she’s turning her back on her past, growing up, and other family members. yes, it’s a new life, but you don’t just drop your old life like they did back mid-millennium. i think this is the rub of my beef with changing my last name. it ties me to my mom, dad, sisters, and brother. while getting married brought nate into the fold, nate does not have the background and history with me like those other peeps do. perhaps my family experience growing up is non-traditional in the sense that we all really like each other and our dysfunction is one grown from and into love, but if that’s the alternative to wanting to throw the past away with a walk down the aisle, i’ll take it.
one thing i’ve seen lately that i really like the idea of is adopting a new last name – a combining of the last names of the two people getting married. THAT i think is a perfect solution. it shows you are committed to each other and willing to share the best of each other while keeping the past alive.
NOTE: i judge the crap out of ladies who change their last names, and i’m sorry. i know i have regular readers who changed their last names. in fact, i only know ONE reader who KEPT her last name (hi liz). like i had my reasons to keep my last name, i realize others have reasons to change their last names, whether that’s to distance themselves from a crappy childhood – i hope not 🙁 -, ease of naming children, or heck, just because it’s what you want to do. i need to get past that judgey part of me. what’s in a name, right?

in which i talk about laws, the ACA, hobby lobby, and may bore you to tears

March 26, 2014 kate Comments 4 comments

i love it when politics puts a hot button issue right in my lap. on top of that, i love examining laws and the constitution. in my alternate life, one that does not include forestry or blogging for a living, i would probably be a research lawyer or constitutional scholar.
there has been some brouhaha over sebelius v. hobby lobby lately – freedom of religion! birth control is bad! the ACA is bad! and you should feel bad! so i wanted to look into it a little further.

image via http://www.ibtimes.com/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-case-sparks-fierce-battle-over-womens-rights-religious-freedom-corporate

1. freedom of religion
we all know the freedom of religion line in the bill of rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*
what many people DON’T know is the original thinking behind putting this line in the first – FIRST! – amendment. the british had gotten away from england – a church run state. Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: “We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation.”**
basically, the founders were protecting the government from being church run. it isn’t to protect the churches from the government. let that sink in.
now, on to…
2. the religious freedom restoration act
the supreme court held a tough test to laws that infringed on religious freedom up to about 1990. there was a case involving native americans smoking peyote and penalties. SCOTUS held that as long as the law can be applied generally to the population, it’s constitutional. congress went ballistic. in 1993, congress passed the religious freedom restoration act, which says that if a law imposes a substantial burden on free exercise of religion, there is a high threshold for justification.***
it should be noted here that this RFRA is applicable to people.
onward to …
3. the ACA birth control requirements and contraceptive mandate
excuse the lousy segue, but it’s important to know this before jumping into the next topic.
in early 2012, health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius put forth the contraceptive mandate, which said that fda-approved contraceptives and services were covered by health insurance coverage at no cost. this made a lot of people happy. providing birth control for women at no cost cuts down on unwanted pregnancies, which reduces the abortion rate. why wouldn’t this be good news?
for religious organizations, this is not good news (which i understand and don’t understand at the same time). there was instated a religious exemption for religious organizations but NOT affiliated nonprofit organizations, which don’t necessarily rely on same-religion people for employees (i.e., atheists can work for a catholic hospital).****
what do these fda-approved contraceptives include? oral contraceptives, injectable, the rung, implants, diaphragms, cervical caps, IUDs/IUSs, sterilization, and plan B. i keep seeing abortificients thrown around, but the only thing i can see that comes CLOSE is an IUD, and quite frankly, they don’t even really know how it works (does it slough out a fertilized egg before it implants? is it mucus? is it the copper?) – just that it does. plan B has been proven to not be an abortificient.*****
when the ACA went into effect, the contraceptive mandate was a part of it. let’s celebrate! less unwanted pregnancies! healthier women! PPMD will be less of a debilitating disease! huzzah!
except not for some…
3. hobby lobby’s substantial burden
hobby lobby is owned by some fairly religious people. they are not against birth control, per se. just IUDs, plan B, and ella, which they believe are abortifacients, despite research that says otherwise.****** but since they are not a company that cannot religiously pick and choose its employees, they have to offer contraceptives as part of the health insurance packages or pay a hefty fine. this hefty fine is to the tune of $26 million a year if they opt out of providing insurance altogether.
and because there are some insurance plans that have been grandfathered in, like life insurance for people over 75, hobby lobby is claiming that the law isn’t generally applicable as well as being a substantial burden.
but the rub here is that the law generally applies to PEOPLE. hobby lobby is a business.
this line from mother jones is a good summary of what this is all about: “But the Greens aren’t the ones who’d be providing the health insurance with contraceptive coverage. Their corporation, Hobby Lobby, would be.”
4. it’s a slippery slope you’re treading here.
so there are a lot of things happening here that need addressing. first of all we have to address this issue of corporations as people, which we’ve heard a lot of lately. presidential campaigns always get a lot coverage about corporations donating money, and recently SCOTUS has ruled that the same laws can apply to corporations as people when it comes to freedom of speech. that’s opening a whole can of worms.
elizabeth warren in september came out against SCOTUS, calling them pro-corporation.
“You follow this pro-corporate trend to its logical conclusion, and sooner or later you’ll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of big business,” Warren said.
warren wrote a VERY RELEVANT BLOG POST that you should read about the current supreme court and how it’s becoming increasingly pro-corporation. if hobby lobby wins this one, and we should know by summertime, it’ll be just another notch on the corporation/SCOTUS bedpost, and yes i mean that allegory like i mean it.
is this really a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
another item that needs addressing is this extreeeemely slippery slope this would be opening up if they won. what if an owner of a large business decided vaccines were against her religious beliefs and didn’t want to provide them as part of the company’s insurance package? how about certain cancer treatments? sure, you may be saying, sheesh, just go buy your own health care separately, but a lot of people who work these minimum-wage jobs don’t have the money to buy additional insurance or pay out of pocket expenses (it’s times like this i am really grateful i am a state employee).
not only that, but the RFRA could start applying to OTHER items, especially if SCOTUS decides that corporations are in fact people in this case.
finally, this is a perfect – PERFECT – example of why the united states should go to a single-payer health system. instead of dealing with frivolous lawsuits, SCOTUS could be focusing on more important stuff, like what to do with all those crooked bankers who got off scot-free during the recession and working on anti-trust lawsuits instead of just throwing them out (because…they’re pro-corporations, remember?).
i do not think this is about birth control. this is a little about freedom of religion. this is a LOT about seeing corporations as people. this is a LOT about diminishing the value of the average joe who makes $10.25/hr versus corporation owners who make mad cash in bonuses.
what can we do? with congress, you could call and email and knock on doors, but SCOTUS is a whole other beast. with SCOTUS, you just kind of cross your fingers and hope for the best. what else can you do? you could boycott, because money does make a difference. also, inform and educate people about what’s happening. more knowledge is always better, in my opinion. *******
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
**http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts
***http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/293956170/hobby-lobby-contraceptive-case-goes-before-supreme-court
****http://www.nwlc.org/resource/contraceptive-coverage-health-care-law-frequently-asked-questions
*****http://www.nwlc.org/resource/contraceptive-coverage-health-care-law-frequently-asked-questions
******http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare
*******you made it! thanks for slogging through!