July 16th, 2003
1. Do you believe that every snowflake is unique? If so, design your snowflake. Are you pointy? Are you symmetrical? Delicate and wispy? Complex and mathematical? Are you the kind of snow that melts right away or sticks to the ground?
Yes, every snowflake is unique.
The ones I like have obtuse angles, mostly large branchings, but some fiddly fractally stuff inbetween the large branches. and it totally sticks around.
2. If you were famous and someone wanted to build a monument to you when you died, what would your preferred monument be? Choose from statue, building, park, sculpture, or something of your own creation.
a park that is a very large (tall and wide) grassy hill in the middle of a city, at least 16 square blocks, with one BIGASS gnarly old oak tree right at the summit.
3. If you could ban one book from high school reading lists across the country, would you? What would it be?
Most fucking useless book ever.
Everything else I'm cool with, but Ivanhoe is irritating, pain to read, and has no redeeming qualities in my mind. Beowulf is far cooler.
4. What's the first thing you would do if aliens landed outside of your house? Like, legitimately, the real thing-- some version of a spaceship and real, honest-to-god extraterrestrials. Let's assume they aren't slime molds, but bipeds/quadrapeds of some kind.
be really impressed then try to determine a method of communication.
eventually I might remember to call someone about it.
5. Of the following, which would you rather do, and why?
a)Sail around the world (in a real sailboat, not on a cruise)
b)Climb Mount Everest (or Kilmanjaro, or McKinley, etc.)
c)Walk across the continental United States
d)Be launched in a satellite that would orbit Earth for two years (with food, water, etc. but no human contact)
If I could find shoes that wouldn't give me blisters, walk across the states.
Sailing around the world would be cool, but it's not really my thing.
If I were single at the moment, I might choose the satellite, but not with my life as comfy as it is right now.
So if the shoes didn't work out, Mt. Everest, because I like the cold. Can't deal with heat. And I do love physical challenges. My sister's fiancee is going to go climb to the everest base camp this fall. not to the summit, but the base camp. cool nonetheless.
No way, dude, we need to freakin' ban "The Awakening".
I always hated that one. And let's get rid of "A Doll's House", too.
The whole "I had kids but I didn't get to have my freedom so I'll heroically leave my family" thing is the biggest group of bullshit yet. And they make you read this in high school. Grrr.
i dont know...its been a while since i read those books, but couldnt they be more for the purpose of subtly warning young women not to jump into marriage and take on full familial responsibility before they KNOW themselves?
i hated "Heart of Darkness" myself. i'm not sure why.
Not really that subtle, is it? :-p
I always like it when people either solve their problems...or live with them. Something about leaving your children because you're sad just really, really makes me unhappy. See, I'd consider it a much better warning if they had the mother continue the parenting job and just slowly waste away into nothing. Well, in their own mind.
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 06:20 am (UTC)|| |
Actually, I always thought that "A Doll's House" was about the psychological damage that a patriarchal society that traps women into one role does to its women.
Bah, that's nothing but an excuse. People aren't "trapped" by society. They embrace it or they don't, it's a decision. Sometimes they just get whiny when they regret those choices, but that's no excuse.
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 08:22 am (UTC)|| |
Wow, it's too early in the morning to take you on for this. All I'll say is that I was named after the main character in "A Doll's House," and while I'm not proud of what she did, I'd be even less proud if she had stayed and "wasted away," as you termed it. I'm content to be her namesake.
But, wait a minute....
It's more OK to destroy the lives of your children than it is to live with the consequences of your own decisions?
You can't get out of it that easily. :-p
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 10:05 am (UTC)|| |
Because you seem not to believe in the fact that women at that time had very little in the realm of "choices," I don't think we'll come to a consensus on this one. If you don't take wasting away for the rest of your life as a viable solution, how else would you approach the situation?
And I'm not "getting out" of anything. It's not like you're "right" and I'm trying to weasle my way out of the situation. I just find nothing satisfying in an argument where it all comes down to different basic beliefs. It's like trying to argue with religious people about their beliefs in God. Sooner or later, you hit a brick wall. Which is why I so rarely counter posts you make that I feel are egregiously wrong. It's just not worth it to me, since I know neither of us are going to change things we basically believe in, and I don't care enough about the issue to try and "make" you feel differently.
Well, OK, I'll just respond to the first bit first...
I believe that they didn't have that many socially acceptable choices, but whether it's a choice you want to make or not doesn't really affect the fact that it's a choice. Hmmm...that not accepted asa viable solution? Then I suppose that our options are to run out of choices, redefine "viable", or come up with some that I haven't thought of (entirely possible).
And the second part:
Now you're just not being any fun. :-p
I like you anyway though.
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 10:33 am (UTC)|| |
*laugh* I think an accurate description of our relationship (in the cyberkinetic sense) is this:
Tommy throws acid on a cat. The cat's hair stands on end and it screeches, then jumps on Tommy with claws bared. Tommy and the cat tussle for a while. Tommy puts the cat down. They hiss at each other for a while and are then silent. After a while, Tommy pats the cat on the head. :)
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 10:36 am (UTC)|| |
Oh, and the rest of the post: I guess it depends on how you define the word choice. Sure, she chose to get married and have kids, but what other lifestyles could she have possibly had if she had chosen otherwise, especially in the 1800's in Russia? Unlikely to get a job or have any money, ostracized from society due to her apparently freakish disinterest in having a family, one can see how the choice, as it were, could be one with the blame not entirely set on her head.
Oh, come on. There's always.... errr. Prostitution?
No, see, that's WAY off.
I don't like cats.
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 12:54 pm (UTC)|| |
ok, fine, Tommy throws acid on (insert small fuzzy animal of your favorite persuasion here). ;)
Now is it really "Tommy throws acid on" or " sees Tommy throwing acid somewhere"?
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 02:26 pm (UTC)|| |
"Sees Tommy throwing acid somewhere" might as well be "Tommy throws acid on" due to "uncontrollable high moral outrage of said fuzzy animal."
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 08:58 am (UTC)|| |
Hoo boy. Another one for the nature/nurture debate. I am not saying that society controls everyone. But ask anyone who has suffered because of the prejudices of others whether or not their culture has changed their lives. Culture and society have more influence over us than you think.
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 10:07 am (UTC)|| |
Seriously. I'll agree that one should not let society control any of their actions, but I know most of the world doesn't (and in some cases can't) live that way.
Oh, I'm not saying that they don't affect us. Far from it.
I'm just saying that motherhood (or fatherhood, as the case may be) comes with certain responsibilities. These should not be cast aside because you are unhappy. You should live with or repair your mistakes, not turn away from them with your eyes tightly shut and your fingers stuck in your ears muttering "There's nothing wrong here!"
Why do you think I'm not having kids? :-p
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 11:01 am (UTC)|| |
I'm not having kids for the same reason.
I just want you to consider, given the time period and the place, how little choice she had in the matter of whether or not she got married or had children. No worthwhile contraception, a husband she probably didn't chose, and if she didn't have children or get married she had no place in society. Indeed, the idea of there being alternatives AT ALL (i.e. being a maiden aunt/schoolteacher) proabably never was even on Nora's mental map. So basically she is forced into motherhood unprepared, and consequently loses it and runs away.
I am not saying what she did was at all good for her children. I'm just asking you to consider why she, and others in similar circumstances, might become desperate enough to do such a thing. I think that is what the play was trying to illustrate.
OK, fine, I can concede that she might not have seen other alternatives. As long as you'll concede that she was very stupid. 0:-)
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 11:16 am (UTC)|| |
Nope =P I contend she was weak and at least partially brainwashed. Better?
Ah, but a countercontend that brainwashing affects mostly the stupid. :-p
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 11:33 am (UTC)|| |
To a certain extent I agree with you. I think most of us in this country are brainwashed, and I also think most Americans are stupid, so I can accept that.
But who is to blame -- the brainwashee or the brainwasher? I blame the brainwasher more for taking advantage of the weak-minded.
I think Americans are brainwashed too, until I look around at other countries and see how much they suck. :-p
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 12:26 pm (UTC)|| |
Actually, I think the entire human race is brainwashed. It's just a question of type and degree. My husband would say that we are all unconscious also, but I'm still trying to wrap my brain around what he means, so I will leave it at that.
heh...i was looking in my brain for the word "covert" and i couldnt find it, so i settled for subtle.
i do know what you mean, but i dont think the stories are entirely without merit. they're also a good illustration for the problems that accompany GOOD changes (here, women's lib combined with familial neglect), like how after slavery was abolished, a lot of former slaves ended up having trouble adapting and how the south went through such a messy time of reconstruction. (forgive the analogy, i'm rereading Gone with the Wind.) what the lesson is, i'm not sure...but if it a book makes you think (even if those thoughts are outraged), it's achieved something. in my humble opinion. :)
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 12:58 pm (UTC)|| |
most hated high school book
Most definately, without question, above all and so on...I hated "David Copperfield." First off, it is like 500 or more pages of Old English rubbish. By the time you "get into the book" you have read the same amount of pages as a normal book. None of it reaches out to women really. I did not identity with any of it. Nor do I remember much of it. Worst of all, my English teacher made each of us read one chapter (about 50 pages) and then we had to stand up in front of the class and give a summery of what we read. Not everyone is an actor you know...so some of them totally sucked at getting in front of a group of people and actually making what they have to say moderately engaging. Ug. bad memories of d.c. burn that one in a heartbeat!
|Date:||July 17th, 2003 09:55 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: most hated high school book
Ooooh, how about "Moby Dick"? My favorite part s where Melville literaly tells hat it is simply a whale story, and there is no deeper meaning, and it is most DEFINITELY not an allegory. Then teachers make you decide what everything represents.
Also, the 50 or so pages on cetology (probably spelled wrong but I need to hurry up and play Freelancer tonight, dangit) are both boring and incorrect.
The use of 1st person omnipotent also hurts me.