ex machina

i recently re-watched alex garland's 2014 ex machina.

something i thought interesting, but also super obvious, was that OF COURSE you can fuck the robots. of COURSE a man, especially that man, would make them sexy and fuckable. tho i guess i appreciate that he made them capable of "enjoying" the sex? but i think most men would prefer that even if many don't put in much more effort to make that happen.

so would a woman make a fuckable robot? i think probably not. and, actually, i think most women would make another woman robot, rather than making a man. i can't decide if that's because people tend to find women less threatening than men, of if we find it easier to order them around. (like how most digital personal assistants have women voices. [this may be because the west traditionally has women secretaries, nurses, assistants, etc.])

anyway, i'm glad ava got out. and while i did feel bad for caleb, like, what was he going to do with her anyway? 

"be right back" take 2

recently, when down in sd with friends and visiting other friends, i rewatched black mirror's "be right back" episode. my friends and i ended up arguing a bit about it, so i thought i'd write a post. as i started, i thought i'd see if i'd written a post about it before, and, me being me, it turns out that i had! that post is here.

it's interesting to see that i basically feel the same way as i did seven years ago. the only thing that's changed is that i now DO think it's disrespectful to "upgrade" your person, but i'm still not sure if it's ethically wrong to do so. i think that may depend on the consent of the original person, and probably your motives for doing so. giving something to someone they always wanted seems fine, giving them something they never cared about also seems fine. but giving them traits they never wanted, and would find insulting if changed, seems morally dubious. but i wonder sometimes if motives should affect morality as much as we want it to, but i dunno, so imma leave that part "blank."

anyway, back to now. my friends seem to think that this is terrible tech and should never be implemented because 1. people should move on and 2. relationships with real people are better than relationships with fake ones. another fear of theirs is that by 3. not moving on, one will disregard all real relationships and become a non-contributing member of society, which is bad.

i had a lot of issues with pretty much all aspects of this.

1. people should move on.
i already addressed this in my previous post so i'm not going to get into it again, but while i agree that people should move on, i don't think it's as necessary as my friends seem to think it is. i also don't think it's a moral imperative that people do move on, especially if not moving on doesn't really hurt anyone else.

2. relationships with real people are better than relationships with fake ones and
3. one will disregard all real relationships and become a non-contributing member of society, which is bad.
my friends seemed to stress that you can't have a real relationship with a non-sentient being, and especially not if you can control that being. the show seems to indicate that you can alter the personality of the android thing more to your liking, and less what the person would have really done/said/been. let's accept that premise. my friends seem to think that if you can now create a "perfect relationship," you will, and that that will negatively affect your relationship with others since, presumably, you won't have prefect relationships with others, so you'll cast aside all other real relationships and only up keep only the perfect one.

firstly. why are real relationships better than ones you create?
normally, reality matters. i'm thinking about celebrity stalkers here. but if this isn't even a real person, the relationship isn't really reciprocal, so you're not misinterpreting something to someone else's deficit.

second. would that many people want to create a "perfect relationship" if they could? let's say that yes, they do. but would that negatively affect your relationship and interactions with others? i don't really think it would. and if it did, would it so terribly affect your relationship with others that you would give up on all interactions with the real world? my friends seem to think so, but i really don't. i don't see that happening hardly ever. in the show, the main character seems ashamed of the android so she hides him away, but would people do that if this tech were mainstream? i can imagine going to a friend's house where her andriod husband is there and we all hang out as real humans do. he can't come to my place, sure (in the show, they have to remain within ~30m of their activation point), but i imagine she would have a normal life outside of her home. she still has to go to work, and grocery shop, and such. it's not like her whole life would revolve around this android. and if it did, it would no more or less a problem that if her whole home life revolved around a huma. also, many people have pets that are exclusively confined to the house and that doesn't seem to be an issue. in fact, you don't even have to feed or potty break an android, so maybe it'll less of an inconvenience than a housebound dog with no yard.

also, i don't think that being a contributing member of society is so important. we have a lot of people who don't particularity "contribute" to society but we're okay with them. (i'm thinking people in comas, people in prison for life, severely mentally or physically disabled people, the list goes on.) we don't complain about these people not giving back to society, and in fact, they may actually "take up" resources in ways that an android wouldn't.

actually, what does contributing to society mean anyway? having a job, volunteering, spending money which grows the economy and keeps people employed, being part of a community which enriches people's lives, creating something long lasting, making at least one person happy?

ultimately, i'm not saying that i'm for this kind of tech. i just don't think it's as bad as some others seem to think it is. i'm generally a "you do you, and i'll do me" person. if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else (feel free to hurt just yourself), then go right on ahead. i think A LOT about morality and i try to form my judgements based on morals, not just what feels right or wrong. i think that's why i'm a lot more accepting of things and people. ...which i think is good, lol.

refocus

this month I went to Tennessee with the girls. we had planned to take a trip together for our 30th birthday, but for some reason or another, we didn't do it. we did manage this year tho! we took about a 8 day trip, which included nashville, gatlinburg, the great smoky mountains, and knoxville. ac and i extended our trip two extra days to visit memphis.

this trip was great fun! it was our first time all traveling together and i think it went real,ly well! sure, there were little frictions here and there but i think all those smoothed over quite quickly. it was really interesting since while we grew up together, we haven't spent that much time together as a total group since school. even in college or after, we would reunite for a few hours for someone's birthday (or a wedding!) but nothing ever more than overnight.

i do fairly frequently say that we're friends now because we were friends then. but if we had all met now, we likely wouldn't be friends. certainly not all five of us, and i wonder if any pair of us would be real friends if we met now. it's not just the geographical thing, but we're all really quite so different.

outside of everything, for me, this trip made me want to refocus my work back into environmentalism, or at least environmental adjacent.

most everyone in my life now is so "normal" in their consumerism. j, of course, not withstanding. most everyone else (my family, friends, coworkers) seem to only not buy things because they can't afford it. need barely factors. i don't even mean real actual need, but just regular need.

being with my friends that week, being with them all day, i got to see habits like what, how, and when we eat and what we buy and for how much. it was interesting. the last few years, i've seen people around me live their lives and each time i feel a little void between us. that trip, being with them all week, i felt more of that void than ever. it made me wonder what i was doing, and why, and if it was really what i wanted.

and, honestly, yes; it is what i want. i want to be actively engaging in conscious decision making. and i want to be a good person, doing what i can to create a better environment around me. (environment not just used in the nature / green sense) and that environment means the people i surround myself with. i want to be more with people who inspire me to do better, be better, live better. not people who make me question my morals.

i certainly won't be throwing off my friends or family because they unthinkingly use single-use plastics or anything like that. but i can choose to engage more with the "green" community, whether thru social groups or professionally. and because i don't really like making new friends, making them thru work would be the easiest thing to help keep me on track.

so while i wanted to get away from environmentalism after algalita (because emotionally it was hard to see 8 years of work "down the drain", i think i may be ready to return again. the work at hbcfl makes me feel good, certainly, but it is a bit too far removed for me as well. i need to find a better balance of professional and personal fulfillment. i think, when possible, i would like to volunteer with food orgs when we're away. i really do hope to use this time to explore, not just the country, but myself. i want to know myself better and better myself as well.

control

I think there are two sources of control: you think you know better and/or you're insecure

a friend doesn't want to donate money to another friend in need because she doesn't think he's made good decisions with his money so far. if he had planned better he might not be in the current situation. so in giving him more money, her money, he might also waste that money, her money.

well, sure. but once you give something away, it's no longer yours. maybe you're not financing their poor habits, but you're helping them be the person that you enjoy, the person you're friends with. stress of not having money will probably change them, make them less happy, less nice, less pleasant to be around. 

on the other side, are those who don't think they know better, but who are insecure and don't think they can keep you otherwise. so they hold on tight. the jealous type in relationships embodies this type of control. 

asian american - pt 2

Conscious Style Guide - Drop the Hyphen in Asian American

when I was a kid, I played around with Asian American or American Asian, and for some time I classified myself as American Asian, because I felt American first. my parents, not having been born or raised here, were Asian American.

I don't remember thinking much about the hyphen tho. I think agree with Maxine Hong Kingston, that “I have been thinking that we ought to leave out the hyphen in ‘Chinese-American,’ because the hyphen gives the word on either side equal weight, as if linking two nouns. …Without the hyphen, ‘Chinese’ is an adjective and ‘American’ a noun; a Chinese American is a type of American." this runs parallel to the idea I had about Asian American vs American Asian. 

in the comments where I found the above article linked, someone said that "Asian Americans are Asian migrants who now have American citizenship, and so, they're in the same category as African migrants who now have American citizenship, and therefore are African Americans. There's therefore a distinction between African Americans and Black Americans." which is true! white Charlize Theron was born in South African and is now American. she is fully African American, tho not Black. and Rhianna is part Black and was born in Barbados, not Africa (tho her mom is Afro-Guyanese), so she's not African American. but then, what are people like me? I guess the rather wordy: American of Asian descent, because I don't think we'll ever be referred to as yellow Americans (nor should we be!).

p.s.
we SHOULD start using white American a lot more, or at least until we stop using race as a common identifier. otherwise, American will always default to being a white person.

asian american - pt 1

I remember from when I was kid, my dad told me a story of him and his Asian Hawaiian coworker. something about how the coworker called himself an American, but that my dad thought that was only half the story since white Americans will never see Asian Americans as truly American.

when I was much younger I disagreed with him. it was true for him, maybe, since he was a naturalized citizen who only came to the US in his 20s and still spoke in a heavy accent. but me, I'm American! I was born and raised here; I speak with a SoCal accent. white Americans will see me as one any other American.

I think it was only in high school that I realized he was right. by then I was at a school white a ton more people (2000 students) and more racial diversity.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the last part of this article in the NYT: 
...I told my parents they were wrong about who we were. We were Asian-American, not Asian, and we were definitely not Oriental.
“We’re not American,” they said. “We’re Asian." At least they didn’t laugh me out of the house for my arrogance.
“Asian-American,” I said. “Not Asian Asian.”
That was more than 20 years ago. On a recent visit to New Jersey, I asked my parents, former Reagan Republicans turned staunch Obama Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, if they felt American now that they’ve been in the United States for half a century.
“Of course,” my mother said. “What else would I be? Even though other Americans don’t see me as American.”
“Well, who cares how they see us,” my father said. “They can think what they want, but it doesn’t matter to me.”
I hope he’s right. Regardless of how we are seen by others, we are the ones who can best see ourselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New American Economy - Combatting the AAPI Perpetual Foreigner Stereotype

gender

Podcast: Knowledge Gaps in Intersex Health Care (undark.org)

I always thought that if I had kids I'd want to raise them fairly gender neutral. I would allow them to decide what they want to wear, play with, participate in. tho I admit, I will cringe my little girl will only wear pink and play with dolls, or if my little boy only wants to play with guns and wear camo. 

this extends to if i had an intersex child. unless it was medically necessary, I wouldn't want to have my child undergo gender "assignment" surgery. like, what if I make the wrong decision? what if I choose for my child to be a boy and they grow up feeling like a girl? or what if they never want to choose? ugh. no thanks. kid, you can decide and I'll support you no matter what.

I understand that childhood will be much harder for an intersex kid. for some reason people are obsessed with sex and gender. people apologize to me and roux when they mislabel him as a girl. like, what difference does it make? least of all to him! but I think being honest with my child, and allowing them to make their own decisions is the most respectful thing I can do. this is their life and I don't think I should be able to, basically unilaterally, decide this for them.

evil

Matt Ruby - Just how evil is Amazon? And am I awful for being a Prime addict?
also: Gizmodo - Is Amazon Evil and Am I Evil for Using It?

what is evil? people in the article above define it as:  not capitalism, something that is out of normal, dodging taxes, and "what lies outside the boundary of the moral community."

personally, i think I would evil as purposely hurting something (or someone) purely for one's own gain. therefore, amazon (bezos) is evil, because it repeatedly hurts the environment, local economies, and its workers to make more money for itself. plus, unregulated capitalism is definitely evil and amazon is trying its best to deregulate itself. 

so if amazon is evil, are you evil for shopping with them? no, because you're not purposely hurting anything. you're inadvertently hurting the environment, local economy, and fellow humans. also doing evil things does not make you evil anywat, unless those evil actions are born of evil beliefs. most people shop on amazon because it's easy and they think it's cheaper (tho often times it's not), not because they want to underpay workers, ruin the environment, destabilize the community, etc. however, they know they're doing these things second hand through amazon, and yet continue to do it anyway. which, again, while not evil, is certainly not good.

I think the majority of middle class americans have heard of a lot of the bad things amazon does and have decided to not think about it. to not take responsibility for encouraging evil because they are not themselves actively committing evil. but every decision you make is another opportunity to reinforce your beliefs, since it doesn't really matter you think if your actions don't reflect it. I think shopping on amazon shows that you value your convenience and wallet over your moral code (because I think most people say they value the environment, the local economy, and worker's rights).

so don't do it. decide now that you ARE a moral human. that the convenience of getting something shipped straight to your door matters less than the health of planet you live on and will leave to future generations. that your wanting to save a couple bucks matters less than the health and quality of life for 800,000+ amazon employees. that your 15 minutes saved by not price comparison shopping matters less than supporting local or smaller shops which hold up our community and pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than amazon does so that you don't have to be taxed more to subsidize bezos and his legal tax dodging.

don't perpetuate evil and don't support amazon. 

minimum wage

The Guardian - How much is an hour worth? The war over the minimum wage
and for a little background info about the minimum wage from the US department of labor

i quickly googled it, but didn't find it easily so my main questions remains: how is minimum wage determined anyway? and how did they arrive at the $15 an hour for the new minimum wage?

the Guardian article keeps referring to economic studies and theories, but is that the only field of study that matters in the fight for or against a minimum wage? I feel like we should also be consulting psychologists and sociologists, and more. certainly the economy affects everyone, but in what feels like a very indirect way. it'll be harder to find a job, or you'll get a bigger year-end bonus, but generally things are pretty stable, even prices of apartments and milk. 

what does a living wage mean to people? what to they spend their extra money on? are there fewer deaths somehow (since people can now afford preventative health care rather than "I'm literally on my deathbed where's the nearest hospital" kind of care) is there less crime? more college graduates? more babies being born?

there's a widely quoted factoid: "When affordable is defined as comprising up to 30% of a renter’s budget, a full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage [$7.25 per hour] cannot afford rent on the average two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country." not sure why they went with two bedrooms. maybe cause many people have dependents? I think a one-bedroom apartment might be a more realistic expectation. all the couples I know share a one bed-room,  unless they have roommates in the another bedroom. the singles are either in studios, or also have roommates. only those that are in their 40s are living alone, without roommates, in their one bedrooms. 

I think there should be a federal minimum wage, and, likely a higher one for most states. it should be determined based on a number of factors like average price of a one bedroom apartment, cost of gallon of gas, and maybe cost of a dozen eggs. cost of living, basically, which is why each state would have it's own minimum wage. it's true that cost of living can vary wildly across each state, but I think it maybe too much to do city minimums. possibly counties might be better. 

control

Vogue - The Supreme Court Is Letting Trump Get Away With Weakening Birth Control Coverage Mandates

I don't understand how it's okay that a person's religious and moral beliefs can oppress other people. what does your religion have to do with my health care?

if my employer is a jehovah's witness, should my health coverage not include blood transfusions (and therefore rule out many major surgeries)?

if my employer is an anti-vaxxer, should I (and my children who are on my health care) be forced to pay for vaccinations out of pocket?

or what if I believe that you shouldn't have any kind of health care since you can just pray to god really hard and ask him to cure you? his will is the way, and if he wanted you healthy, well, you would be.

article about how birth control used as medicine, not to control births: Why the Supreme Court Ruling on Birth Control Is Even Worse Than You Think

trans rights

"discrimination laws don't apply to transgender people"?! well, I looked up the laws and can see how they don't. =\ I mean, technically transgender people change their gender, but not their sex (which is biological and has to do with the x and y chromosomes) so I can see how a total asshole of an employer can legally discriminate someone over this.



an article about Aminee Stephens and her case: She came out as transgender and got fired. Now her case might become a test for LGBTQ rights before the US Supreme Court.

the case is still pending, but hopefully, if SCOTUS does hear it, they will make the right decision. trans people already suffer so much, they need to be protected against employment discrimination.

April 2020 donation

even when I first started tracking notable articles on this blog in October 2018, I noticed that I read a lot of stuff from The Guardian. I never noticed before then tho. since noticing, I've thought to donate, but never did so until today. I gave only a small amount, and hope to feel more comfortable to give more after Covid, but I think anything, no matter how small, is appreciated.

I plan to choose a new group to donate to every month, and will probably eventually want suggestions. but for now I really like NPR, Radiolab, PBS, Planned Parenthood, Compton Initiative, OC Food Bank, Second Harvest, Food Finders, Harvest Partners, Food Forward, and Seed Savers.

cross-posted to my other "blog"

intended harm

taken from theskimm Oct 13th

What's hitting the 'deny' button….

SCOTUS. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied an appeal from gun-maker Remington to block a lawsuit filed by families of the 2012 Sandy Hook victims. The families claim the company is liable for the shooting over its promotion of the rifle used in the massacre. But the company says a law protects it from lawsuits over crimes committed with its guns. Yesterday, SCOTUS said it won't hear the appeal, so the lawsuit now goes back to a lower court in Connecticut.

I wonder if this is a good idea. I get that guns are essentially MADE to injure/kill something/someone so it's not like a BMW could be liable in the same way if someone killed someone else using a car because cars are made to transport you from point a to point b. that you misused it and killed someone doesn't really have to do with the car itself.

but couldn't you kind of argue that alcohol is made to make you feel different which leads to decreased reaction speeds, impaired decision making etc. so if someone killed someone else while drunk, could the victim's family sue Johnny Walker?

or a better example might be smoking since abusing alcohol is the problem, but having a glass with dinner likely won't hinder you enough to accidentally kill someone in an alcoholic fit. but if I died from lung cancer caused by second hand smoke, could my family sue Phillip Morris? when used correctly, smokers do cause harm to others. 

4x

taken from theskimm on Oct 8th:

A new report shows that LGBTQ+ diversity on TV is at an all-time high. Last year, the advocacy group GLAAD called on the TV industry to do better when incorporating LGBTQ+ diversity. And called for 10% representation on screen by 2020. Yesterday, it released a report saying the industry delivered with 10.2%.
The study also shows that LGBTQ+ women characters outnumbered LGBTQ+ men on broadcast TV for the first time ever... There was also an increase in the number of transgender characters. But GLAAD doesn't want to stop there.
It's challenging the TV world to get to 20% by 2025. And that within the next two years, all platforms should make sure at least half of the LGBTQ+ characters in shows are people of color.

I'm definitely not against representation, but how much representation is "fair"? a gallup poll in 2017 "concluded that 4.5% of adult Americans identified as LGBT." so at 20%, GLAAD wants a major over representation of a minority group, which seems kind of uncool.

of course, 20% is still very small compared to 80%, but with any over representation you're in a sense discrimination against the other. I don't care if there are fewer straight characters on tv, but what if we were to request the same representation of other minorities?

asians make up about 6% of the general population of america; should we ask for 1 in 4 of characters in media to be asian? that may not be a problem, but hispanics make up 16.7%, so 4 times that would be nearly 67%. we're out of percentages if we add all up all the non-whites in america and multiplied that by four, so there would be negative caucasians on tv.

harm vs harm

I've been thinking a lot about harm lately, and unintended consequences. you cannot live life without causing harm. and it's not even as easy as trying to live causing the least amount of harm possible because sometimes it's impossible to weigh.

at our office, sometimes even deciding where to eat brings up a lot of questions. do we get slightly better tasting burritos at whole foods which is owned by amazon which annually produces nearly as much carbon as swizerland or denmark? not to mention all their terrible workers' rights issues, and lack of paying taxes. or do we get not as tasty burritos at chronic taco which probably also does a lot of terrible things that we just don't know about because they're not as closely scrutinized as amazon?

and that's just lunch! where do you stand on bioplastics or the conventional kind?

a lot of people would say, bioplastics, of course, because it doesn't come from petroleum, and it has a smaller carbon footprint because most oil doesn't come from america anyway. but that's just the oil aspect. most bioplastic in the states is made from corn since we have govt subsidies for that. but it's those same subsidies which ultimately led to high fructose corn syrup in everything because we have too much corn and the govt asked scientists to come up with ways to use it up. and, while both oil and corn require water, corn requires more land and possibly causes more water pollutants because of fertilizers and pesticides. oil has led to war, which farming hasn't as much, but our modern conventional farming has led to hella cancers and also involves migrant workers / illegal immigration issues which oil likely has too much definitely on a smaller scale.

end of life is murky too. bioplastics are rarely recycled or composted. in fact, they actually contaminate regular plastic recycling and most waste haulers don't even want it. almost all bioplastics end up in landfill where they don't biodegrade at all, but do release methane, which regular plastic doesn't. methane, of course, contributes to increased greenhouse gases which aggravates climate change.

so, which is better? well, they both suck. just in different ways.

I tell the customers to decide what matters most to them (for me, i sacrifice taste and eat at chronic because i don't like to support amazon), and not worry too much about the rest. i also suggest they do research so they can make informed decisions, but as demonstrated above, sometimes it's the knowing too much that makes it impossible to make decisions!

articles about bioplastic here and here
fact sheet about bioplastic

i also want to emphasize that a lot of the bioplastic on the market isn't even 100% plant based plastic. something is considered bioplastic even if it's a blend of plant based and petroleum based plastics.

best for baby

I was at a baby shower over the weekend and boy did i feel out of place. it's been hitting me more often lately how my consumerist ways and therefore whole mindset has changed, and in the last year especially.

it's not just that I had to take out my reusable spork (to avoid plastic cutlery), use my water bottle (solo cups), not eat candy (plastic wrapping), or take a party favor (the absolute cutest fox cookies, but, alas, in a plastic bag with a metallic plastic twisty tie). one of the games (guessing prices of baby things) was especially hard. not just because i've never really looked at baby stuff before, but because I have, but the stuff I look at is all nearly plastic free and therefore at a different price point. also, these less waste people I now spend the majority of my time with make due with what they have using handmade all purpose salves instead of special nipple cream, wooden clothes pins you also use for chip bags and laundry instead of special plastic clips for binkies.

my major social circle is my work people. therefore, we're all pretty like minded. the people at the party are on a completely separate path. parents and soon-to-be-parents at the party were talking about a $1300 sound activated vibrating crib that is only good for about 6 months since your baby gets too heavy for it. they were talking about breast pumps where you pump into single use plastic bags and about subscribing to meal kits because you're so so so tired the first few months.

besides the financial impediments, i would likely never even consider these things because of the environmental effect. single use plastic bags for breast milk?! meal kits that use a ridiculous amount of packaging!! but everyone kept saying "you don't understand how tired you'll be..." but, I dunno man. i'm not saying it's ever easy, but maybe these people are tired because they think they HAVE to do this and that. so many women around the world give birth and go back to pretty much their regular lives the next day. so many kids live perfectly happy childhoods without millions of toys and clothes and binkies and absolutely adorable but pretty much unnecessary stuff.

when my boss gave birth she said something about how women innately know what's good and bad for babies. we've been having them for thousands of years, after all. and you know what? i pretty much agree. of course times are different now and there is different "bad" stuff that we just don't know about yet. but basically, I think a lot of knowledge is innate.

someone said how we're of the first generations where we have access to so much more info that what just our small community knows. we've got experts and their books and studies, mommy blogs, parenting chat rooms, the internet at large... there's no shortage of people telling you the what's best for baby.

the whole thing just makes me tired. it's like society is constantly telling you that you're just not good enough, that you can't do it right, and that, therefore, you will raise unhealthy, stupid, and unhappy children. ...unless you buy that $1300 vibrating crib thing.

do i sound gay?

i recently watched the documentary "Do I Sound Gay?"

i won't get too much into the premise other than that a guy, who is gay, worries that he sounds too gay. he does a bunch of interviews and visits two speech coaches.

apparently gay "sounds" like either, but apparently it's speaking with a lisp, increased nasality, enunciation, a wider pitch range, breathy voice, certain lengthened vowel sounds, and adding like an "s" sound to some non-s sounds. gay speech is also stereotyped as resembling women's speech, maybe because young gay boys hang out more with women (because straight guys make fun of them, beat them up, etc.)

so i'm curious. what about gay guys who grew up around men only? or straight guys who grew up surrounded only by women (one guy in the documentary did, and he has a very high pitched voice. i don't think his speech had the other stereotyped traits, but from pitch alone, he certainly sounded female)? and do gay russian or chinese or bolivian guys also "sound gay" the same way americans do? can people identify sexual orientation people speaking foreign languages? probably not, because we're not particularly good at correctly identifying sexual orientation from speech alone, even when it's all in english.

but i'm also curious about lesbians and everyone on the spectrum. do lesbians speak differently as well? and if there really is a "gay" characteristic of speech, how to bisexuals or asexuals, etc sound?

interesting blog post that addresses some of my questions. https://joeclark.org/soundinggay.html

scars

i thought i had gotten out of my previous relationship almost completely unscathed. honestly, i still pretty much think it. but it's hard to end a 16 year relationship without holding onto some baggage. tho i only recently realized how bad it is.

i don't like to talk about feelings, particularly what's bothering me. i think i've always been that way. asian repression, maybe. but during the course of my last relationship, that habit got a lot worse. (no need to talk about why.) but now, when something bothers me, it still takes me weeks to bring it up. but the worst part is that i have to do it in the dark, and with my eyes closed, preferably laying down. it takes several minutes to come out, and i cry, and i shake, and it's weird how difficult it is.

i think i'm getting better tho. j is incredibly patient with me and gives me positive reinforcement after, which i need. i hope i continue to grow in this aspect. i hate that my presentation sometimes makes the issue much larger than it is.

scared

Guys ask why women are so pissed off. Even guys with wives and daughters. Jackson Katz, a prominent social researcher, illustrates why. He's done it with hundreds of audiences:

"I draw a line down the middle of a chalkboard, sketching a male symbol on one side and a female symbol on the other.
Then I ask just the men: What steps do you guys take, on a daily basis, to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? At first there is a kind of awkward silence as the men try to figure out if they've been asked a trick question. The silence gives way to a smattering of nervous laughter. Occasionally, a young a guy will raise his hand and say, 'I stay out of prison.' This is typically followed by another moment of laughter, before someone finally raises his hand and soberly states, 'Nothing. I don't think about it.'
Then I ask the women the same question. What steps do you take on a daily basis to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? Women throughout the audience immediately start raising their hands. As the men sit in stunned silence, the women recount safety precautions they take as part of their daily routine. Hold my keys as a potential weapon. Look in the back seat of the car before getting in. Carry a cell phone. Don't go jogging at night. Lock all the windows when I sleep, even on hot summer nights. Be careful not to drink too much. Don't put my drink down and come back to it; make sure I see it being poured. Own a big dog. Carry Mace or pepper spray. Have an unlisted phone number. Have a man's voice on my answering machine. Park in well-lit areas. Don't use parking garages. Don't get on elevators with only one man, or with a group of men. Vary my route home from work. Watch what I wear. Don't use highway rest areas. Use a home alarm system. Don't wear headphones when jogging. Avoid forests or wooded areas, even in the daytime. Don't take a first-floor apartment. Go out in groups. Own a firearm. Meet men on first dates in public places. Make sure to have a car or cab fare. Don't make eye contact with men on the street. Make assertive eye contact with men on the street.”

 ― Jackson Katz, The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help (The first man to minor in women's studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, holds a master's degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. in cultural studies and education from UCLA.)

i read this and related to the women, but, strangely, also very much to the men. honestly, i don't normally think about my physical safety, even when i travel alone.

from the above list, i only do two. 1. hold my keys in between my fingers to use as a weapon and 2. meet men on first dates in public places. the 1st i haven't done in years. I honestly don't remember the last time I did it. as for the 2. well, i don't date anymore. but when i used to i would put dating profile time, "real" name, phone number, and meeting place into my gcal so if i went missing, my friends could look up who i last went on a date with.

these lists make me wonder if 1. there's something wrong with me or 2. people (in this case, specifically women) aren't too scared. i too have been sexually assaulted. i suppose that it wasn't a violent thing by a stranger means i don't have an increased fear of random men. but i don't seem to have much of a fear of them at all?

i remember once saying to r that i don't know the last time i was scared of a person. i'm scared of all kinds of stuff, bugs especially. i also startle easily, and am not particularly brave, yet, most people seem harmless to me. i wonder why that is, and if i'll end up regretting not having that fear.

lorena

we watched the lorena bobbitt documentary on prime and it was... thought provoking. i'm not going to go too much into it because i don't have super strong opinions about it but:

- you come away from the documentary thinking that john is a real dumbass and most likely a real piece of shit person too. there are multiple allegations of abuse from several different women, a couple of which are really horrific. he completely denies everything and implies that the newer women are accusing him because he has a bad rep already. his testimony changes between trials, he's tried to capitalize off his mutilation (selling punny merch, porn, penis enlargement surgery, working at the bunny ranch...), and he writes these long creepy letters / fb messages / texts to lorena still. like, what the fuck. he's not a sympathetic character.

- you feel the opposite about lorena. her soft spoken-ness makes you want to believe her. and up thru today, she still works with domestic abuse groups. it's not like she's a perfect person without missteps, but you are made to feel that she's a good person. ...of course, the documentary is titled Lorena so it would likely either it would idolize or villainize her.

- women and men really did respond to the incident differently. men seemed to focus on the act of mutilation, while women were more interested in motive of it.

- i liked that they focused on domestic abuse. this trial is just ONE story from comes from millions of untold stories. that being said, i do wish they had kept it more gender neutral. PLENTY of women abuse their partners; not just men hurting women.