This is untoward! This is NOT toward!

We all know that I have had my fair share of problems with the College Board. Read: I fucking hate the College Board. In high school, this organization provided singlehandedly the bane of my existence. And I feel like the way they structure their exams is meant to completely discourage good scores of any kind, much less for the less fortunate.

Now, I know, I've said it again and again - I come from a place that is relatively low-income in terms of general residents. And my high school was hardly loaded for cash. Which is why I feel like the SAT as a whole is biased. This is the reasoning behind why analogies were slowly being eased out of the SAT reasoning portion of the exam.

Herrnstein and Murray concede this problem and give an excellent example of the built-in bias that IQ tests entail. This particular example was taken from the verbal analogy portion of the SAT (p. 281).

RUNNER:MARATHON
(A) envoy:embassy
(B) martyr:massacre
(C) oarsman:regatta
(D) referee:tournament
(E) horse:stable

As Herrnstein and Murray explain, "The answer is oarsman:regatta--fairly easy if you know what both a marathon and a regatta are, a matter of guess work otherwise. How would a black youngster from the inner city ever have heard of a regatta?" (p. 281). But the real question is: What do the psychometricians have on their mind when they create such tests and from what conceptual scheme are they deriving their questions?

Herrnstein and Murray go on to say that other more sophisticated tests have eliminated vocabulary bias (e.g., geometrical figures, etc.) and now measure reaction time and movement time, which give a more reliable figure to the G factor (p. 281-295). Again, this has been broken down according to ethnicity. Even with the limitations of test bias and the amendments to the new testing methods, there is widespread failure to note the unargued assumptions that go into the creation of these revised instruments. Without any solid theoretical framework, there are many inferences that one could make regarding the amount of time someone spends answering a question and the speed with which the hand moves to answer the question, not one of which would necessarily have anything to do with the phenomenon of intelligence or the category of race.

The point applies to all tests including those that utilize geometric figures instead of vocabulary. The conceptual framework from which the tests were created can never be completely purified of the single-minded bias of the creators. Many have written about this problem; but perhaps the most famous is Stephen Jay Gould. In his The Mismeasure of Man, he states succinctly that "determinist arguments for ranking people according to a single scale of intelligence, no matter how numerically sophisticated, have recorded little more than social prejudice (Gould, p. 27-28, 1981).

SOURCE

After all, the SAT test is supposed to be a good determination of how a student will fare in college. Except it's not. Standardized testing has almost no relation to classroom performance other than how to take a multiple choice test. I've certainly known hundreds and thousands of students who are good guessers and certainly beat my SAT score by around 1000 points. It's really all about the prep. And of course the wealthier kids can afford the best test prep there is and knock us all out of the park and go to the Ivies.

(Well, let's just be honest - rich kids don't even need to try to get into the Ivies, just gotta flash the bling that Daddy gives.)

Further, I think it's pretty ridiculous that the test is structured the way it is. You're cooped up in a high school room for roughly four hours. At 7:30 a.m. AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING ON A SATURDAY, THIS HAPPENS. To think that anyone could write a decent essay on the American flag at 7:30 am without food and having just been woken up is ridiculous. On a normal Saturday morning, basic functioning processes are near impossible much less at 7:30 a.m. Lest we forget that the whole college application process involves making yourself look like the prettiest showdog out there with the greatest number of activities. Some of us were out until 1 or 2 in the morning following some sort of marching band adventure, so thanks for that, College Board.

Is the SAT an IQ test?

No.

Why isn't it an IQ test?

Because it doesn't measure IQ. It is used that way. And it was developed from the army IQ test. But even the College Board will refuse to say that this is an intelligence test. And I'd love to see them say it. I'd love to see them say anything because then you can attack it. But there's this kind of mushy response that when you work your way through it, there's sort of nothing left--'Well, it has a slight predictive validity to freshman year grades in college.' We spend a 100 million dollars a year for that? You know--your grades in high school predict college grades better than this and we didn't have to spend anything. (John Katzman, founder of The Princeton Review)

A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, people. A hundred million dollars is spent on this kind of thing. This is madness.

Well, education has always been about the Benjamins, if nothing else, and it's finally caught up with them. At least, it has in the court of public opinion.

What does the SAT predict?

The sole scientific claim of the SAT is its capacity to predict first year grades. According to the technical studies done by the Educational Testing Service and College Board, the SAT predicts about one factor in six--one sixth of the difference between two kids' first-year grades. The predictive value declines after that--looking at four year grades or graduation rates. So even the test makers agree that five out of six parts of whatever it takes to predict how well you're going to do in your freshman year, is not their test.

It does correlate extremely highly with an IQ test. It was developed from the army IQ test...

That's part of the seedy under side of the SAT. The SAT was originally developed by straight out racists--eugenicists, people who thought my forbearers--not just people of color--were imbeciles and shouldn't be allowed in their country because they didn't know the language and couldn't score high on their test. I wouldn't suggest the current people who run those companies share those kinds of ugly views. But it's a self-reinforcing notion of defining intelligence as that which whatever the dominant group in society has. Ends up giving that group higher scores and lower scores. The fact that test scores correlate with test scores is rather meaningless. The tests are measuring the same set of factors. What's more important is whether the test accurately predicts how well you're going to do.
Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director for FairTest

And for one last bit:

And what I was about to say earlier was that, with FairTest and others, they will say that what the test actually judges is quick strategic guessing with less than perfect information. Boys, for example, do better on the math portion of the SAT than girls. They routinely score 40 to 50 points higher. Many people say, well that's because girls are ignored in high school math. That may be true. And yet the girls do just as well in college when they take math courses as the boys, despite their lower SAT scores on the math portion. And when you interview the boys as to how they approach the test, the answer is they basically viewed it as a pinball machine. And the goal was speed and winning. And the girls on the other hand, wanted to work through the problems before they put down the answer. That, apparently, is not merit.

Somebody who wants to work through a problem before concluding with an answer, is not guessing and they're not fast. And so on some level, what we are confusing as a result of this over-emphasis on the testocracy--what we're confusing merit with is speed and the confidence to guess.
Lani Guinier, Prof., Harvard Law School

There's always been discussion of the SAT's potential to be gender-biased, especially on the Math/English front and I feel like this explores the issue well. The SATs are solely meant to rake in money, for the Ivies and for the College Board itself. You pay $40 essentially to take the test, much less $9 per school to send it out. This is what it was when I took the test three years ago - with the recession and inflation, who knows how much more it might be now? Granted, that a student will take the SAT on average twice and apply to three schools (which is meager - I know people who applied to 8), that's $134 per person. When you factor in that it's juniors and seniors who take the SAT, and let's use my HS statistics here, 793 students, that's a little over $106,000 from my high school ALONE. JUST for the SAT. Now, let's assume that number is stable for all the high schools across the country. Not private high schools, public high schools. That's over 2 billion. HOLY CRAP. Much less all the prep and the tests they do on the side that actually matter, like the AP exam.

Anyway, the College Board has just agreed to settle state investigations into its student loan system. Basically, the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut found that they discounted financial aid services for colleges that agreed to put their loans on lists of "preferred lenders." Oh, College Board. Oh, education, you reek of selflessness. (SOURCE.)

I don't know what's to be done, but I think it's important to note the growing movement of liberal arts colleges to stop abiding by the SAT. These kinds of standardized tests are no real measure for ability, as they claim, but just hint at who's a better guesser, a faster guesser, or has more test prep. Well, fantastic. As I did none of those, I'm pretty much screwed. And let's also take into consideration that SAT scores are the first wave of deciding college apps for the Ivies. There's certainly a line (I think it's 1950, with the new system of scoring) where everyone below gets shuffled off as a reject and everybody else's essays actually get read.

Now whether or not they admit this, I kind of believe it to be true.

Until the education system decides whether it's totally for profit or for its students, instead of this wishy-washy doing one but claiming another, then I don't think anything good can come of it.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

STFD, BBS.

(And for those of you who don't speak Internet, it means 'simmer the fuck down.')

See, this is why we can't have nice things. (Also a caveat to avoid reading the comments page of any news site ever. Oh, why can't I ever learn?)

With the news of Black Friday sales statistics popping in from analysts everywhere, gamers are fighting their own little war right now. What war is that exactly? The Wii War. The Gaming War. The Whatever War. BOTH Microsoft and Sony refuse to acknowledge the status of Nintendo as a potential competitor because they feel it's not on par with their consoles. But I say - what? What makes a competitor? While the Wii is still struggling to beat PS2 sales, that still doesn't change the fact that it's been this season's best console so far. For lower/middle-class folk, $400 - $600 is a lot to shell out for a console, much less $50-$75 a game. And for what?

The fanboys are screaming: "Graphics! Graphics! Graphics and high-res make the game." But if this year's sales have anything to say about it, the answer is NO, THEY DON'T. Nintendo gets a lot of flack from the hard-core gamers because they feel the company exploits the niche market, a little cul-de-sac of shoppers not wooed by the big companies. While Call of Duty and Halo belong to the so-called "Big 2", Nintendo is pushed onto the outskirts because of its animation style video games and its so-called family orientation. Super Smash Bros.? Mario Kart? Wii Tennis? PSHAW, they say. PSHAW. Where is the blood, the gore, the utter violence and destruction? And under this giant umbrella of an argument, they yell graphics.

Sure, I'll cave. The Wii doesn't have the awesome specs that both the 360 and the PS3 boast. But does it need to? To be a competitor, does it mean that specs have to be the same? The DS outsold the PSP in mass numbers - and financially speaking, every PS3 sold still means Sony loses money while the 360 barely allows Microsoft to break even while Nintendo rakes them both over the coals with a $6 profit per console. But awesome specs is not Nintendo's goal. It's all about gameplay. It's always been about gameplay. I enjoy gaming as much as the next girl. Hell, probably even MORE than the next girl. I'm the non-creepy girl gamer who has played an RPG or two, mmkay? So don't start preaching to me about practicing what I rant. Because I have (and I prefer Final Fantasy X to all the others, including VII, so if you want to disown my opinion, feel free to do so on that; go ahead, that was a freebie) played games and I honestly say that the interactive element of the Wii is probably its biggest selling point. Families nowadays need excuses and devices to get together, and the Wii lets that happen.

It has mainly non-violent games (unlike Call of Duty or Medal of Honor or Bloodlust or whatever they're making) that prove to be the big sellers (like Legend of Zelda, the cartoonish Super Smash Bros., and Mario Kart, Mario Party, Paper Mario, etc. etc.). The tried-and-true party titles are available for Wii, like Karaoke Revolution, DDR, Rock Band, and Guitar Hero. A lot of people have talked about how the Game Cube was a huge huge failure (let it be known that I do own one). Gameplay is the name of the game, my friends, so clearly Wii is a competitor.

I know that Wii doesn't operate on the same fanboy level as the other two do, so maybe it's not a competitor in terms of fan cons. But lo and behold, all you fanboy snobs, that your opinion does not apply to the 5,999,999,998 other people on earth. So maybe its graphics are unimpressive in comparison but sales-wise, it's still kicking Sony's ass this financial season, so maybe you should shut up, stfd, play a game, and chillax, bbs.

Want a rec? I hear Tennis is a great destressor. So suck on that.

ref: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10111170-17.html

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

They call him Sparkles, the tap-dancing vampire!

Hello, friends. In the interest of the season and my own amusement, I've decided to undertake something for nefarious purposes. What am I undertaking, you may ask? Reading the "Twilight" series. Why is this a nefarious purpose? Because I am reading it to pick it apart and laugh. Laugh hard.

Twelve-year-old fangirls, turn away and cry here.

Now, in no way am I disparaging fangirls. God knows I've done my fair share of fangirling. I just have to say, as a sci-fi connoisseur and a lover of geekery, I agree with the masses of people who got so pissed off that the twelve-year-olds swarmed ComicCon and ruined it for everyone else. Have your fun, but in no way are you more legit than the Battlestar Galactica or Buffy fans who've been flocking there for ages.

Twilight is a young adult novel. And it's a love story. My problem with many young adult novels is their tendency to play for the melodramatic, to hype things up and be overly obvious, and act as if it's not a novel, but a soap opera. This doesn't mean I don't have respect for the genre (though I can understand why some people don't with the fodder that gets published - yecch). "Homecoming?" Brilliant. "Artemis Fowl?" Nice. "A Series of Unfortunate Events?" Filled, filled with literary goodness. Roald Dahl? Are you kidding? Meg Cabot! Come on! But then we get all the trashy high school romance, clique-y, woe-is-me club. Gossip Girl. *shudder* All that Lurlene McDaniels crap.

Getting back to my point, Twilight is about the forbidden love of a human, Bella Swan, and a vampire, Edward Cullen. (Initial point of judgment: the horridly drab Edward is meant to be a Gothic hero, which - Smeyer, you're doing it wrong - based off of Edward Ferrars and Mr. Darcy. Really? REALLY? So I have my prejudices, but I hope you'll lend me the space for them because I'll bring the literary evidence to back it up. YES INDEED.

Now, some of you may be asking: "Karen, what's wrong with a little escapist literature? Don't we all love to read a trashy romance here and there? I mean, Shopaholic is hardly The Odyssey." That's true. Normally, I have no problems with trashy lit. I've read it, I indulge in it - the problem is that this series is being shipped off to middle schools everywhere for young girls to read and absorb, who then expound that it's the greatest book ever OMG! and that nothing compares. Jane Austen? Pfffffffft, take a lesson from Ms. Meyer here. She's got it going on. None of this personality bidniz, or that whole plot thingamajigger, or, what's-it-called-oh-yeah-FEMINISM.

So I've been browsing the Amazon chat boards because, god knows, I need more ways to procrastinate. And I've read plenty of reviews defending Twilight because it portrays teenagers accurately. So Bella is shallow? So are teenagers! Thus she is a perfect heroine! I just have two words to say to you all: SCARLETT O'HARA. You want shallow? Vain? Bitchy? KATIE SCARLETT'S GOT YOU COVERED. She uses men (which you can argue is antifeminist), but at the same time, she's got BALLS, okay? She gets her shit together when things get tough, uses what she can, takes care of her family. She throws vanity down the fucking drain when it comes to growing food - she doesn't care how people see her, she just wants to survive. THAT is a heroine.

(And none of the Twihards have even read the book, I gather, just watched the epic of a film that eliminated two of her children.)

A lot of what bothers me is how people argue that Bella's obsessive love for Edward is feminist in its portrayal of her decision and choice to shy away from things like school and a career in favor of love. That's all well and good - yes, feminism is about choice. But feminism is about equal rights as well - and there's a limit. You can say you're choosing to do what you please for yourself as much as you like, but if it's an abusive relationship, when should people step in and tell you that what you're choosing isn't the right option? That's mainly the problem with the characters so far. Edward and Bella fall in love in split-seconds, almost (which is mainly my reason for disliking, by which I mean HATING, Romeo and Juliet, but to be fair, they do die at the end, so you have to give them props for committing), and then become devoted to each other in this awesome, sparkletastic, obsessive, stalkerish way. No. This is not healthy. Stop telling twelve-year-olds this is healthy, Smeyer.

Edward tells Bella what to do and she obeys for the most part, waits to be saved, is a damsel in distress, is wholly apathetic and unwilling to make changes in her life yet expects it, becomes suicidal when Edward decides to leave her alone - what? WHAT? This isn't love, guys, this is called OBSESSION. It's unhealthy.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to the point to call Bella a feminist heroine. She's simply not. Heroines are proactive, and do something - Bella just waits patiently to be saved. And feminist? She whines and allows herself to be dominated by men. And I have no issues with the domestic aspect of it. As a woman, you should be allowed to choose how you want to live your life. But I have issues with dominion. Women are not property ANYMORE and her willingness to go along with it goes beyond this idea of choice. It's just embarrassing for anyone with ovaries.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

Collegian training, nail paint and relationships

I freakin' love blogging. You wouldn't be able to tell from my oh so frequent posts, of course, but I really do.
So life's been fun lately. I've gone through some downs. Actually I've gone through lots of downs (I maintain that it could have been much worse, though) and I'm very grateful that I'm so lucky to have great people with me. To my best friend and cousin, Karen: I love you so freaking much. In all our crazy phone mis-conversations and what not. I think the real solution to this recent blargh-ity feeling would be locking ourselves in the bathroom and having a good, long talk. Just like when we were little! :D

As if I didn't have enough on my plate, I added a second job! I'm in training for it right now and it's an experience so far. I've made new discoveries regarding my personal interests, strengths, and motivations for life, for school, and for play. There's just so much to sponge up, I hope my brain can take it! The experience here as a member of the creative team hopefully will be useful in a career sense. If not, I suppose I'm strengthening my time management muscle. : /

I love the weekend as much as the next person, but I never really "lived for the weekend". Nowadays? Definitely living for the weekend. Each week, I look at this calendar printout and the time slots are ALL FILLED IN. Even then, I barely have time to finish reading all these novels.
Who else finds is strange to go from reading a novel for an Asian history class to reading a sci-fi novel? I wonder what my brain looks like when it switches modes.

Sci-fi.
Asian history.
Martian colonies.
Khmer Rouge.
Human versus machine.
Refugee camp brutality in gruesome detail.

Totally ridiculous.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

Si, se puede.

Guys, guys, all two of you out on Mars who are reading, this comes a little late, but regardless, I wanted to let you guys know that national pride doesn't falter often. And I'm so proud of our country for electing Barack Obama. You know, there'll be tons of naysayers out there who'll say that he's a socialist (which, come on, we do have a Socialist party in the US, though it's been long dormant, and if he was, he'd totally run under that banner) and that he's not doing enough to help fix the country. Blah, blah, blah, we haven't gotten to that point yet. Or have we?

Being in college, I try not to waste time that could be spent sleeping or studying or eating, but this ultimately proves to be a failed venture. So, as a college student, one of my Firefox staples is Facebook. Yes, yes, let's espouse how much it wastes our time and is pointless, but I use it nonetheless. And Bumper Sticker? That annoying application? Why, yes, I use that too. And when I was browsing through groups and random other things, I've noticed a trend.

There are about a handful to a dozen Facebook groups calling for Barack Obama's impeachment. His impeachment, ladies and gents. Let's--let's take a minute here to let this fully sink in. A president-elect, a man who has a good two months before being inaugurated is going to be the subject of an impeachment hearing by the Senate (or so some people hope). A president-elect. Can we just repeat those words over and over again like a mantra for the stupid? He's a fucking PRESIDENT-ELECT. What could he possibly have done in the two weeks or so that he's not yet held office to have pissed off so many members of the American people in such a way that requires their response and pleas to Congress for his impeachment? Is it the fact that he's young? Black? May have sex with his wife on a regular basis? (Seriously, that warranted a Huffington Post article because apparently, presidents are very asexual and old, and the fact that he may have sex with Michelle more than once a year like the Carters did is, you know, distressing to all those political analysts.) Let me reiterate: WHAT COULD HE POSSIBLY HAVE DONE IN THIS PERIOD OF POSSESSING NO POWER TO HAVE BROUGHT ON THE WRATH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Sigh.

Let's not go any further before I give myself an aneurysm.

In other news, you should check out IOUSA. It's directed by Patrick Creadon, who is responsible for the documentary piece, Wordplay, that came out a while back. It mainly focuses on these economists and such in a way to explain the economic fate of the country in simple layman's terms so that we can all understand how fucked we are. And in terms of fuckage, my age group? My demographic? Be prepared to be fucked worse than the generation that's paying for us now.

If you have time, they have a Facebook group (the movie does) where you can watch a quick 30 minute bit. But I'd wait for it to come out on DVD and watch it in its full glory. Honestly, as one of those socially anxious neurotic people, it freaked me the hell out to the point where paranoia does not cover the grand scheme of my reaction. But it's very informative, to say the least, and uses graphs and economists.

And as a parting note, I'd like to note that all this economic fuckwittage occurred in EIGHT YEARS. So those of you who are bitching about Obama being a Clinton Clone (as you call it) economically, socially, etc. etc., let me just stick this in here: that would be great for the country. Grrrrrrrrrreat. (Even Tony the Tiger espouses Clinton.) Because Clinton was the only president in the history of the United States to ever achieve an economic surplus. From balancing the budget.

Quick sound bite from the movie:

"Everyone hates to hear the term 'raising taxes.' It's a political campaign-killer. But as an economist, I'm just telling you right now, there's no way for us to climb out of this hole without raising taxes."

Yep. So the whole "tax-and-spend Democrats" label? At least we're covering our asses when we spend money for things. Unlike the "slash-and-spend Repubs."

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

we are the angry mob, we read the papers every day/we like who we like and we hate who we hate, but we're also easily swayed

Do I love the Washington Post or do I love the Washington Post? Answer is I [bleep]ing LOVE the Washington Post. Mainly because I love 1984 references. Also, for pointing out craziness.

Here's what I'm talking about.

Some quotes for people lazy to read it:

We don't live in an age of looking up to authority anymore. We don't cotton to the idea that there are people who are our betters. In this time of "American Idol," bedroom bloggers and the belief that experience, knowledge and education don't necessarily mean a whole lot, Palin is a symbol, a statement that anyone can make it if he or she really tries.

See, the thing is...this is what people were saying about Obama too. You know, he's the embodiment of the American Dream, blah blah blah, and really shows how anyone can become president if they really want to. The thing is, though, that this election has really brought out the strangest, most disturbing criteria for a president...ever. Some people won't vote for Obama because he's "too skinny" and therefore...is unable to rule? Or, or, how about because he doesn't have a dog? And it disturbs me SO MUCH that one of the biggest Google search for Sarah Palin also includes the phrase "hot photos." EW. EW. Yeah.

And McCain definitely knows the power he has now.

McCain knew it; he led the audience in a chant of "Sar-ah! Sar-ah!" Still, did the man who might be the next president know that hundreds would start streaming out of the park as soon as Palin finished speaking, leaving a noticeably sparser audience to hear from the top of the ticket?

But this also scares me to an extent - hundreds, possibly thousands of people, are voting for McCain because they like Palin, and might be sitting somewhere, waiting for McCain to have some sort of emergency, when their true hero(ine) can step in.

Most people I spoke to readily conceded that Palin lacks experience with or knowledge of many important national and foreign issues. But, as Allison McGarvey, a teacher who lives in Stafford County, said, Palin is "a courageous woman, and what she doesn't know, she can learn quickly. Let's face it, no president knows all the issues. Anyway, I don't see how a candidate can pick one stand and just stick to it. The world situation changes every day. It's their moral and ethical background that's important."

Seriously? That's a big, bulk-sized BJ's Wholesale Club "Crock o' Shit" there. And anyway, isn't that what we were bitching Kerry out for in the 2004 election? Being a flip-flopper. But, wait! There's more! We've flip-flopped our stance on flip-flopping. It's important in this election! It's just their moral and ethical background that counts. And as a pro-life stance is the only thing that can be moral, clearly Sarah Palin and that guy who hangs around her a lot is the best choice omgz!!11!!!

Like many at the rally, Victoria Robinson-Worst sees Palin's lack of experience as an asset. "I know people who have experience who are totally incompetent," said Robinson-Worst, who lives in Loudoun County, designs wedding flowers and raises two children. "And I know people who have no experience who step in and get it right. I mean, women can do amazing things."

Okay, this is all I have to say. (Fisher, the writer of the article, notes that FDR and Reagan were not exactly people on welfare, yet managed to be some of our greatest presidents.) As a person and an American citizen, I don't want someone like me running the country. You know why? I know shit about foreign policy, I'd probably inadvertantly piss off the Premier of Denmark or whatever, and I make mistakes ALL THE TIME. I want someone who went to school for this. I want someone who KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK THEY'RE DOING. Not just someone who'll figure it out on the way. NO. DO. NOT. WANT. At all. If I were to accept inexperience at all, it would not be during an economic crisis when gas prices are going through the roof and we are in a war. WE ARE IN A WAR. I NEED SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT TO DO IN A WAR. And yeah, yeah, let's bring up Obama's inexperience oooooone more time. But still, his cabinet is experienced.

This whole Sarah Palin business needs to stop being about "omgz! a woman in power!" and more about can she accomplish what we want her to? And her being a mother of five does not apply.

And I leave you with this, which is quite possibly, the best line ever:

This is where culture wars, identity politics and self-suffocating academic theories of deconstructionism have led us: Authority is suspect. Experience is corrupting. Ignorance is strength?

Next will be "war is peace." Or have we already heard that one?

In other news, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER, that herald of truth, got on McCain's bad side. They published an article claiming that Palin had an affair with her husband's colleage, and McCain threatened to sue. Which, fine. The National Enquirer is skeezy and I totally get it. But then they had to go and make a snarky comment and garner some of my respect, damn it.

Our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process.

Bwah. Oh, National Enquirer. Don't ever change. Anyway, if you look at the various things going on, people in Alaska thought she did a bad job as governor, politicians are saying she can't articulate a single policy and are only voting for her because they like her (because we didn't do that 8 years ago and we certainly didn't figure out that it was a big mistake), and biologists are angry at her because, despite her father being a science teacher, she's a proponent of teaching creationism in public schools. Not intelligent design, which pretty much got PA senator Rick Santorum booted from the presidential race because it made him look like a jackass afterwards, but creationism. Which is worse. So yay, let's elect her to the VPship.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

Shower?

So the other day, I wasn't feeling very good. This is becoming typical at a very alarming rate—the whole not feeling good thing, I mean. No one really wants to hear about that part though. Nothing anyone can really do, I suppose. I think I’m okay physically, I mean, no broken bones or stuffy sinuses or runny noses or anything like that. Yesterday morning, I just felt so uncompelled to leave my bed. It was not a feeling I liked—in any sense of the word ‘like’ but, I just couldn’t seem to help myself. I cried. A lot. I thought that maybe taking a shower would clear my head of all the confusion; would clear my mind of the mist that was clouding logic; would clear my heart of all the uncertainty. Fail. The only thing the shower succeeded in doing was make me smell like Ivory soap. Yay for moisturizing aloe. I didn’t know what to do; I still don’t. I lay there, twisted in my blankets and comforters wishing for the improbable. I don’t understand myself. They only thing I know is that I want to be happy. So what’s the right thing to do? What’s the right course of action? What happened that I lost the happiness I had? I’m typing this in the HUB… and all I want right now is to cry. But I can’t.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

Seriously? After this, I quit.

I have always been interested in the color-dynamic thing and the whole gender-assignment thing that happens at birth and in childhood. Why do boys get blue and girls get pink? I, for instance, like green. Why don't they wrap kids in all different color blankets? I realize a lot of it is tradition - you know, yay! a boy! or yay! a girl!, but as kids grow up, it's still the same. Boys get trucks and girls get dolls and little mini-ranges. You know, to prepare them for their lifetime of cooking and cleaning. I'm just saying. And why are girls who enjoy playing sports and all rough-and-tumble "tomboys?" Because they act like boys? But all of this behavior is assigned from the moment kids emerge from the womb. Not so, claims a new study.

Girls are biologically inclined to pick pink, scientists say. It's because, you know, our Neanderthalian female counterparts used to pick red berries and leaves and, you know, when babies come out, they're reddish-pink and guys like blue because their Neanderthalian counterparts used to look up at the sky. What? How does looking up at the sky aid in survival of the fittest in any way? Is staring up at the wispy clouds going to help one hunt woolly mammoth even faster? But here's the rub. Apparently, later on in the article, it says that Chinese men actually prefer pink to other colors. And why is this? Are Chinese men especially effeminate? (Because there's a stereotype that doesn't exist.) Or is it a cultural thing? Is it because red and reddish hues (which are related to red) are related to happiness? See, the thing with doing scientific studies is that SCIENCE DEPENDS ON LOGIC. And logic is important when you make huge generalizations like this.

And see, this is why I love Bitch magazine:

Science has the capacity to surprise and amaze us, but sometimes it’s more satisfying when you can jump up and say, “Yes! I knew it all along!” Which is why articles touting the awesomeness of traditional gender roles are an evergreen subject in the science pages.

Scientists are not immune to gender bias. Women who exercise more are less prone to get cancer. Oh, housework counts as exercise. So all this leads to a headline that implies, "GET IN THE KITCHEN AND YOU WON'T GET CANCER." Way to go. My problem is that media completely distorts studies into a gender-biased way and then these quotes get quoted again and again and again until they're rubbed in my face as validation that feminism ultimately hurts women. UH, FAIL. I realize that I'm mainly summarizing a lot of the points in the Bitch article, but it's just SO FANTASTIC. To throw in a personal anecdote for no particular reason, I have experienced sexist behavior before. And to say things like women have no sense of humor as compared to men is just...I don't even have words for this. In the words of my roommate, "Men are bitches." And they are. If they can't be the best, no one can. And to talk about double standards, it doesn't just apply to gender divides in humans, but also to large cats. Like cheetahs!

Whether it’s lions fathering all the cubs in their pride, or human males getting a pass for cheating on their girlfriends, males sleeping around rarely make the news—it’s the natural order, after all—unless the article is happily touting the genetic advantages a male gets from spreading his dna around.

But when female cheetahs were found to do the same by a Zoological Society of London study, the study’s words about “promiscuous” felines were quickly outnumbered in Google’s index by the phrase, “cheetahs are sluts!”

Study author Dada Gottelli was quoted thus: “Mating with more than one male poses a serious threat to females, increasing the risk of exposure to parasites and diseases. Females also have to travel over large distances to find new mates, making them more vulnerable to predation.” Sounds like a cheetah-specific version of certain sex-ed curricula: Don’t sleep around, girls, or you’ll catch lots of diseases and the male cheetahs won’t respect you in the morning. Male cheetahs, however, aren’t “promiscuous”—they’re creating a healthier gene pool.

Not too surprising, then, that most of the coverage glossed over the evolutionary benefit of promiscuity for both male and female cheetahs: Multiple cubs by multiple cub daddies increases the likelihood of genetic diversity—a definite positive for a threatened species. Furthermore, the study noted that the rates of infanticide in cheetahs are much lower than in other big-cat populations, likely because male competitors don’t know which offspring might be theirs. But why let the facts slow down a good headline?

Further on, it shows that apparently people can use made-up studies that don't even exist to push products and sell papers. I think that in our modern world where the news is almost always interpreted as fact and science always equated with logical truth, it's important to realize that this era of Bernstein and Woodward going against the establishment and whatnot is over. OVER. And it's sad. Tragic, really. So, just goes to show. It's like that front page article from The Wall Street Journal that claimed that Americans were not going to vote for Obama because he was "too skinny" and that American culture celebrates the complete opposite of that and because of that, he's not a good fit. Okay, no matter where I fall politically, vote for McCain or vote for Obama, but vote for good reasons. Don't vote for McCain because he's omg!normal sized!. She cited a survey with numerous sources. Later on, it was revealed that she had posted a question on an AOL Message board and used the netspeak comments of other users to prove her point. Aren't you glad that ppl who talk laik dis can ttly vote 4 prez?!! omg!

Yeah, no.

Seriously, can we get studies that prove that the genders are equal? Neanderthalian groups hunted together so that totally means that women precipitated the downfall of Neanderthalian societies. This has nothing to do with the Ice Age or, you know, maybe meteors falling from the sky or whatever killed the effing dinosaurs. It was women. WOMEN KILLED HUMANITY, GUYS. KEEP THEM DOWN. Or, you know, testosterone is linked to humor. THEREFORE GUYS CAN TAKE JOKES AND WOMEN CAN'T. Testosterone also linked to career ambition. So women who are ambitious are more "masculine" so, what, ambition is a masculine trait? Women can't want careers?

Seriously, to quote Hamlet 2 (which, if you haven't seen it, is so funny): SHUT UP, YOU FUCKING BASTARDS.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

A Feminist Fairy Tale

So I'm taking this Intro to Feminism class online from Penn State and one of our projects is to re-write a classic fairy tale from a feminist perspective. Here's my version of "Cinderella". Enjoy!

Here's the prompt:

Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice…
Writing a Feminist Fairy Tale
(Approx. 500 words)
How many hours a week would you guess that a 1 year old toddler watches television? Well, given that the American Pediatric Association recommends that children under 2 years of age don't watch any television, it's surprising that, on average, those one-year-old toddlers are watching about 6 hours a week ! And that's even better than the 20 hours (on average) that children ages 2-10 watch! So as parents across the country pop in the next Disney DVD, let's take a moment to think about the gender messages that come across and see if we can do a bit of intervention.
Student Project: Read the classic fairy tales Snow White and Cinderella . Choose one story to rewrite from a feminist perspective. You will be graded on creativity and originality, as well as your ability to consider new ways of understanding gender roles. Your story should challenge conventional themes such as rescuing others, submissiveness/ aggressiveness, domesticity, concern with physical appearance, etc. You should target this story to a young audience—feel free to situate the story in any setting. You may tailor the story to suit your needs, but the overall arc of the story should remain intact. Be imaginative.

My story is under the cut.


The Ella Story (Cinder optional)

Once upon time there was a girl named Ella who lived with her father and mother in a small home. Then her mother died. Dad roamed the streets and found a new wife. Although this woman was very nice to Ella’s dad, she was very mean to Ella and always treated her own two daughters much better than Ella.

In the winter, they never gave her enough clothing to keep warm and so Ella had to resort to playing in the ashes of the fireplace to stay warm. One day, Ella’s dad came home from work and saw the sisters cackling at Ella and taunting her and calling her Cinderella. His heart was so hurt, that he decided to separate from the stepmother. So Ella and her father moved out of the big house that the stepmother owned and into a dainty little shack near the interstate. Ella’s father couldn’t bear to see Ella burdened with all of the housework by herself, so he decided to stay home and help. He also found a job cleaning other people’s houses too. Because cleaning work doesn’t pay as well as doing business, Ella and her father lived very humbly. They were happy, but they were also very poor.

One day, as Ella’s father was sweeping the walkway to some grand house, he overheard the neighbors talking about the grand ball that the governor was holding to celebrate his son’s return. Ella’s father saw this as an opportunity for Ella to make new friends and hurried home to tell Ella the good news!

In his hurry, he tripped over the threshold to his cozy little shack and broke his foot. Ella immediately dropped everything she was doing to rush over to her father’s side. She ran for the doctor, but sadly, their fees were all so high (and she had no insurance)! So she rushed back home and comforted her father, situated him as best she could in his bed and sat by his side as he told her all about the governor’s grand ball. Presently she started to cry deep, choking sobs of sorrow. Here, this strange portly woman dressed in a glittery gown appeared at Ella’s side.
“Crying because you can’t go to the ball, Ella?” inquired the portly woman.
“Who are you, and what are you doing in my home?” yelled Ella, angrily.
“I’m your fairy godmother, you silly goose! I’ve come to help you get to the ball, so you can stop weeping now.”
“You moron, I’m not worried about the ball! I don’t even want to go now! I’m crying about my father! He just broke his foot! Jeez! A ball…! Come on!”

The fairy godmother, although a bit shocked that her goddaughter just called her a moron, gladly fixed up her father. A tap of her magic wand, and her father was good as new, no broken anything! She turned to Ella, sized her up with her eyes, did a circle or two and nodded a few times.
“Mmhmm. I think I have just the dress for you, Ella-dear!” she said, as she whipped out an entire rack of expensive designer dresses.
“We’ve got silk chemise, satin, crushed velvet, anything you can think of!”
“Great.” says Ella. She proceeds to reach into the rack and pulls out a hideous seafoam green and dandelion yellow cotton polyester mess. “Here. I want this one.”
The godmother, holding back her vomit, tutted at her. “No, no, no, dear. Obviously you need much more help than I imagined.” With a wave of her wand, Ella found herself in a tailored, sky-blue silk evening gown with none of the puffs or tulles she imagined. With another wave of her wand, the fairy godmother produced a shiny new Rolls Royce limosine complete with mini bar and chauffer.
Ella makes a face of disgust, “What is THIS?!”
Rolling her eyes, the fairy godmother replied, “We can’t have you going to the ball in a 1987 Volvo, you know.”
Ella retorts, “Hey Volvo’s are super safe, you know. But fine, no Volvo. I want a Vespa instead.”
The fairy godmother stops pushing Ella into the Rolls Royce and just stands there, dumbfounded, “You mean Vespa, like the scooter?!”
“Yes, godmother. A Vespa.”

The fairy godmother, though looking down on the choice, has no choice but to grant Ella’s wish to go to the ball in a Vespa.

So Ella zooms off to the ball in a shiny, new, fire-engine red Vespa.

At the ball, she mingles, picks up a conversation there, and a conversation here; maybe makes a few new friends. She introduces herself to everyone she sees, and gradually makes her way to the front of the crowd of townspeople waiting eagerly to welcome the governor’s son.
The governor’s son finally makes his appearance, and as he slowly descends the grand staircase, his eye catches Ella’s. He’s so captivated by her beauty that he trips down the rest of the flight of stairs. Ella manages to push past the guards and run to his side to help him to his feet and at that moment, the governor’s son fell in love.

And the rest? They say it’s history.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again

"Is it Total Crackpot Day again?"

Oh, bad things happen when free time and Wikipedia are involved. So, while at Pineapple Express, I saw a preview for Michael Cera's new movie which looks adorable, which I want to go see. The lead girl kinda looks like Regina Spektor and I love Michael Cera and think he's adorable, so that's pretty much settled. Oh, but Wikipedia doesn't drop anything, and my curiosity pwns Pandora's by like a million so I clicked on this thing called antifeminism. OH, WHY DID I DO THAT.

Some of this stuff is just amazing. In a bad way. Like this blurb from some kind of published author? See, when these things crop up in PRINT, this is generally what leads to a lecture from my 11th grade English teacher for two hours about crazy feminists during a free period (and it's happened). I HATED BEING SINGLED OUT FOR MY BELIEFS. Mainly because I'm a student and can't really say anything back without being disciplined for it. But the paragraph:

There is no solid satisfaction in any career for a woman like myself. There is no home, no true freedom, no hope, no joy, no expectation for tomorrow, no contentment. I would rather cook a meal for a man and bring him his slippers and feel myself in the protection of his arms than have all the citations and awards and honors I have received worldwide, including the Ribbon of Legion of Honor and my property and my bank accounts. They mean nothing to me. And I am only one among the millions of sad women like myself.

Or, this gem:

A special measure of honor is given to a lady, “the weaker vessel,” by a gentleman. Interestingly, this is unique to the Christian lifestyle. Heathen cultures do not honor or value women – and even their version of “protecting” women has more to do with selfishness and possessiveness (kind of like protecting your livestock) than it does truly protecting or valuing them.

As a minority, I am kind of offended. Mainly because I have no idea how they define heathen (though it's probably one who is not Christian), but also because jeez, what an enormous generalization to make. A lot of cultures don't have the same ideas about equality for women, but that doesn't mean that other cultures don't honor or value them AT ALL.

And my personal favorite example of miscommunication:

I am also not a feminist, for the same reason you aren't. But I have another reason also - I don't want to be associated with the "pro-choice" (what a misnomer - it should be pro-death), man-hating, down-with-motherhood mentality that so pervades modern feminist women. That attitude goes against all that God has told me to be, and it is the last thing I want to be associated with. I am not a feminist...I am a Christian, a lady, a wife, a mother, and that is good enough for me even if the world sneers at it.

I'm really glad now that I took a feminist course while at New School because they're CHOCK-FULL of radical feminists. And my professor was just an amazing woman. And one of the things she said about abortion really stuck with me. She said, "Why is it that people who are against abortion get to say pro-life? That's a horrible position to take. It makes pro-choice equal to pro-death. But that's not true. What about the mother's health?" And it's not just about if her life is endangered, but like her health in general. Maybe I'm over-generalizing. But that paragraph, that sentence really sums up a lot of the misinformation about feminism. I don't hate men. And I certainly don't rail against motherhood. But maybe it's not for everyone (just like having children might not be everyone), and having that pushed on someone certainly isn't a good choice either.

Rant over.

click to expose me!

click to shrink again