Wednesday, April 29, 2009
So I am always, always bewildered when I meet people my age who are so ridiculously clueless about common medical conditions and facts. For instance, one of my friends didn't know what cerebrospinal fluid was (or at least, not that it was around your spine). Another friend who is pregnant with her first child apparently just recently became aware of an episiotomy. Is it just me, or is that something you want to know about before there's a child growing inside you? Then again, I knew about it, so maybe that's why she's pregnant and I'm not... (not to mention that she's obviously getting action and I'm not).
So this whole panic over the Swine Flu is annoying me as well. One of my friends thinks that you can get it from eating pork. I had to explain to her that influenza is a respiratory virus. And the panic? As we've all been told repeatedly, people in the U.S. are not dying of this in large numbers! Everything I've seen says that people respond well to anti-virals. WHY ALL THE PANIC? Good God. This is getting ridiculous.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Oh, I think we'll manage just fine. Hot dawg(s).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
"What would be a caress or a mere assault as between persons of the same or similar social standing would become of much graver moment as between persons of a different social status and of different races." Richardson v. State, 123 So. 283 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).
Or, to paraphrase, when a black man rapes a white woman, it's aggravated assault. But when a black man rapes a black woman, it's merely simple assault. Something tells me that this distinction wasn't enforced too much when the alleged rapist was a white man...
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Although, to be fair, it's unclear whether Starkey is referring to history in general or the history of Henry VIII. If it's the latter, he has a point to some extent. Most people do known about Henry VIII because of his six wives. But is that necessarily because history has been "feminised"? Or is it because most people are woefully uninformed about history? I remember watching the movie "Amazing Grace" with a friend, and when William Pitt's character was introduced, she was astounded that I knew he would eventually become Prime Minister. Even after I explained that I took History of England for my history credits in college.
My point is, history is a mystery to many people. Robust characters like Henry VIII catch our attention much more than sensible characters like William Pitt the Younger. I'm not sure it is feminisation by female historians that is to blame for Henry VIII famous wives. (I'm particularly annoyed by the reference to Alison Weir. Yes, she wrote a book on the six wives of Henry VIII, but she also wrote an entire book about Henry himself.)
And if Starkey WAS talking about history in general, I think he could have found a more tactful way to get his point across. Because he comes across sounding like he has a problem with books about female historical figures, and that's concerning and annoying. I don't care if men were the ones with all the power--that doesn't mean the women's stories don't deserve to be told. Personally, I think part of the fascination with Anne Boleyn is that, despite her huge sexual influence over Henry VIII, in the end she was still at his mercy and couldn't save herself when his favor turned. Maybe Starkey doesn't understand that that is part of what draws us in. I take issue with what he says about Elizabeth, as well. So what if the Victorians thought she was a failure? I think her story is interesting if for no other reason that her father was obsessed with getting a son, but she turned out to be one of the longest ruling monarchs.
I'm not a historian, but I think that women like Eleanor of Acquitane (sp?) and Margaret of Anjou had an influence. And I care to hear about it. I fail to see how that is feminising history. But then again, I'm not a historian. Maybe there is something going on there in HOW the stories are being told. But even so, that comes across as rather condescending to female historians like Weir and Antonia Fraser, as if he's saying "You gals don't know how to get it right." Starkey talks about how he has a problem with ascribing modern values to history, but each historian ascribes their own values to the story they tell. Isn't there room for different viewpoints without implying that one is less accurate than another? Most of the historical accounts were written by men, so how can we be sure that THEY are accurate?
I don't know, I feel like I'm rambling now, but something about that just really rubbed me the wrong way.
But one thing I have always held strong to is avoiding Jane Austen fan fiction. (Okay, I read part of one book my aunt got me for Christmas and I thought it was terrible.) I don't have anything against fan fiction, but there's just something so off-putting about people who think they are worthy of writing (and publishing!) about Austen's characters. Would I try to paint a companion piece to the Mona Lisa? No.
However, I bought this yesterday, and I'm pretty excited about it.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
1. Have so many children that I require a minivan or sport utility vehicle to drive them around.
2. Place stick-figure stickers meant to represent my family on the back of my minivan or SUV (yes, two bitch slaps will suffice).
3. Get a vanity plate that has "GRL" in it anywhere, such as "SEXYGRL," etc. No wait, get a vanity plate, period.
4. Buy a Yorkshire terrier and start wearing giant sunglasses to walk all over town in.
5. Date a Republican.
If I think of more, I will add them later.
* I'm sure this term has sexist origins, but I'm using it anyway because it gets the message across.