If so, why?
And more importantly, if not, why not?
Is it because they're boring? Elitist? Can't be seen on TV? You have better things to do with your time? You'd rather do something active, like laser tag or Frisbee golf? Because they have no sense of humor? Because what's the point of museums, anyway?
(These are all reasons I've come up with, myself, and I lived in D.C. for two years -- so imagine how many more I must have. The point is, no reasons are stupid. [Okay, most reasons aren't stupid. {I haven't played laser tag in years, and never played "Frolf."}])
Sunday, January 31, 2010
PSA: What I wish they'd told me when I moved (on) to Boston (Legal)
There are only three good seasons.
You may sometimes ask yourself why you stay, and occasionally your only answer will be "James Spader."
People may seem to be there long-term, seem to be permanent fixtures in your life, but they disappear without warning, and sometimes without subsequent explanation, often between seasons.
There are more transvestite and transgender people out there than you thought.
Politics are fun, but they're not enough.
You may sometimes ask yourself why you stay, and occasionally your only answer will be "James Spader."
People may seem to be there long-term, seem to be permanent fixtures in your life, but they disappear without warning, and sometimes without subsequent explanation, often between seasons.
There are more transvestite and transgender people out there than you thought.
Politics are fun, but they're not enough.
Friday, January 29, 2010
PSA: "Pop" goes the...wait, is it a boy or girl?
According to this very interesting article, there's a couple in Sweden who are raising their child without specific gender identification. They dress "Pop" in clothes belonging (supposedly) to both sexes, and they refer to "Pop" (not the child's real name) with Pop's name rather than gender-specific pronouns.
Perhaps more interesting than the practice, which to my mind is certainly not more disturbing than the way some ultra-conservative parents raise their children (to hate homosexual people, for one, and occasionally to hate themselves for BEING homosexual), are the comments on the article. As a recent queer theorist (at least I'm taking a "queer studies" class), I'm particularly interested in the input from "Bisonex," the male-identified intersex person who was raised "incorrectly" as a girl.
One wonders when reading queer theory how many people out there really ARE intersex -- not that the number of people affected is a valid question when you're dealing with human rights, but that it commands its own theorizing of "sex" and "gender," and a retheorizing of heteronormativity as a result of intersex people's existence and rights to remain intersex (rather than having gender assigned). So it's interesting to hear from someone who fits into that category and by doing so, destroys (or calls into question) all the rest of them.
Let me know what you think of Pop, Pop's parents' choice, and the comments that follow. I'll be interested to hear it.
Perhaps more interesting than the practice, which to my mind is certainly not more disturbing than the way some ultra-conservative parents raise their children (to hate homosexual people, for one, and occasionally to hate themselves for BEING homosexual), are the comments on the article. As a recent queer theorist (at least I'm taking a "queer studies" class), I'm particularly interested in the input from "Bisonex," the male-identified intersex person who was raised "incorrectly" as a girl.
One wonders when reading queer theory how many people out there really ARE intersex -- not that the number of people affected is a valid question when you're dealing with human rights, but that it commands its own theorizing of "sex" and "gender," and a retheorizing of heteronormativity as a result of intersex people's existence and rights to remain intersex (rather than having gender assigned). So it's interesting to hear from someone who fits into that category and by doing so, destroys (or calls into question) all the rest of them.
Let me know what you think of Pop, Pop's parents' choice, and the comments that follow. I'll be interested to hear it.
New Modern Deity: Carteron
Carteron is the deity of previous era's horses and buggies, now god over shopping carts, go carts and bumper cars.
Carteron is particularly concerned with the regulation of shopping cart use. While Carteron may act as the patron deity of the homeless, allowing them to guard their valuables in shopping carts, he has no patience for those who misuse carts within their department or grocery stores. Misuse includes allowing carts to drift into the paths of others or into large displays of items, especially when distracted by chatting with others met incidentally at the market, leaving carts out in the middle of the parking lot, and shoving carts together in inappropriate ways without fixing them.
Rowdy children, who tend to fall under the jurisdiction of the deity Kindermal, may be encouraged by Carteron (thanks in part to the long-standing feud between Carteron and Kindermal) to misuse carts, including in ways associated with the legitimate use of go carts and bumper cars. Thus, children often escape punishment for misuse -- in fact, they may be used by Carteron as agents of punishment for adults who should know better.
Divine retribution for shopping cart misuse may include giving the misuser a cart with wobbly or squeaky wheels on the next shopping trip, allowing a cart to crash into either one's own vehicle on a subsequent trip, or into the vehicle of a high-priced attorney with a Lexus and a tendency to sue individuals "for the principle of the thing," or the subsequent inability to extricate two carts from each other, or from the cart corral, on the next trip.
Libations and sacrifices may be made to Carteron in the form of shopping cart wheel grease and courtesy in not blocking aisles and returning carts to proper places at the end of a shopping trip. As Carteron also functions as god of bumper cars and go carts -- and is thus something of a mischief-maker -- prayers for retribution involving getting hit by another cart are often efficacious.
Carteron is particularly concerned with the regulation of shopping cart use. While Carteron may act as the patron deity of the homeless, allowing them to guard their valuables in shopping carts, he has no patience for those who misuse carts within their department or grocery stores. Misuse includes allowing carts to drift into the paths of others or into large displays of items, especially when distracted by chatting with others met incidentally at the market, leaving carts out in the middle of the parking lot, and shoving carts together in inappropriate ways without fixing them.
Rowdy children, who tend to fall under the jurisdiction of the deity Kindermal, may be encouraged by Carteron (thanks in part to the long-standing feud between Carteron and Kindermal) to misuse carts, including in ways associated with the legitimate use of go carts and bumper cars. Thus, children often escape punishment for misuse -- in fact, they may be used by Carteron as agents of punishment for adults who should know better.
Divine retribution for shopping cart misuse may include giving the misuser a cart with wobbly or squeaky wheels on the next shopping trip, allowing a cart to crash into either one's own vehicle on a subsequent trip, or into the vehicle of a high-priced attorney with a Lexus and a tendency to sue individuals "for the principle of the thing," or the subsequent inability to extricate two carts from each other, or from the cart corral, on the next trip.
Libations and sacrifices may be made to Carteron in the form of shopping cart wheel grease and courtesy in not blocking aisles and returning carts to proper places at the end of a shopping trip. As Carteron also functions as god of bumper cars and go carts -- and is thus something of a mischief-maker -- prayers for retribution involving getting hit by another cart are often efficacious.
Friday, January 22, 2010
PSA: My comment on SB article "How Obama is Bankrupting America"
Here's the article.
Here's my response:
A couple of points:
1. The stimulus, whether it’s working or not (and many pundits agree that it’s done good over the last year), and the need for it, is the result of deregulation that took place quietly under Pres. W. Bush’s administration.
2. Using the word “czar” to describe Pres. Obama’s advisors doesn’t make him sound more like a Russian; it makes your article sound more biased.
3. Just because Congress doesn’t want the coverage that they may or may not be voting for doesn’t mean it’s not still better than the NO health coverage that something like 20% of Americans rely on. (Incidentally, assisting with the health of anyone makes everyone healthier, as those who failed to vaccinate their children (leading to outbreaks of measles and the like) have learned the hard way. If everyone was healthy, there would be no one to catch swine flu from and all our health care costs would go down.)
4. Using phrasing like “questions have been raised” about global warming and saying that “someone hacked into the files” of a research institute makes it sound like your source is a chain-letter email. The scientific community is agreed on this, as they are on evolution – and take that as you will if you’re not a (theistic) evolutionist. But EVEN IF global warming were not linked to carbon emissions, CARBON EMISSIONS are linked to carbon emissions. In other words, Pres. Obama and environmentalists are trying to find ways to lower pollution levels around the world, which improves the planet for everyone and falls right in line with the command to steward the earth.
5. The war in Iraq is still happening, and it was never stopped when Pres. W. Bush was in office. Just because he hung a “Mission Accomplished” banner doesn’t mean that a single soldier was withdrawn from combat. At this point, though I may not agree with further prosecution of war, if we left Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be in worse international and domestic positions than they were before we declared war on them, and more global instability means more chance of trouble for everyone. We’ve made their problems our problems, and now fixing them is at least in part our responsibility. One would hope that some of the infrastructure and governmental issues in those countries would be on their way to resolution by June of next year. The billions spent on that are not more than was spent during the Pres. W. Bush administration, and they should go towards repairing our part of the mess.
6. The questions of national debt and personal debt are different. And yet, Americans DO spend more than they earn, and they ARE in a great deal of personal debt. Thanks to changed bankruptcy laws under Pres. W. Bush, most American will not be able to discharge their debt through declaring bankruptcy.
7. There’s no evidence that putting America into vast debt – a policy which began perforce thanks to policies that long predate Pres. Obama’s election and inauguration – would turn America communist. In fact, the best historical example of a people plunged into hideous debt who clamored for regime change is pre-Hitlerian Germany. In that case, you should be accusing Pres. Obama of being fascist, not socialist.
But he doesn’t sound or act like much like a fascist – and with Pres. W. Bush’s administration spying on the American people through illegal wire-tapping and checking up on what books they check out of the library, Pres. Obama doesn’t sound comparatively much like “Big Brother,” either – so maybe we should be looking out for a demagogue who promises to get us OUT of debt to “transform” our society into the nightmare you feel it’s becoming. Maybe we should be on the lookout for someone whose rhetoric sounds like Hitler’s.
8. You suggest that we “stand” together and do something, but it’s unclear what you’re recommending be done. Elect Republicans in the next election? (Even though it’s the deregulation of the “too big to fail” banks that Republicans supported that has left us in this mess? Even though in deregulating these banks, Republicans have had as much to do with the failure of small businesses as Democrats possibly could?) Or would you support a third party? Or are you simply suggesting we pray for the second coming before we have to worry about it?
I’m interested to hear how you’d solve these issues...really. I'd like to see positive suggestions for these problems wherever I see critique of them. Maybe we could all collectively come up with something creative enough to work that way.
Here's my response:
A couple of points:
1. The stimulus, whether it’s working or not (and many pundits agree that it’s done good over the last year), and the need for it, is the result of deregulation that took place quietly under Pres. W. Bush’s administration.
2. Using the word “czar” to describe Pres. Obama’s advisors doesn’t make him sound more like a Russian; it makes your article sound more biased.
3. Just because Congress doesn’t want the coverage that they may or may not be voting for doesn’t mean it’s not still better than the NO health coverage that something like 20% of Americans rely on. (Incidentally, assisting with the health of anyone makes everyone healthier, as those who failed to vaccinate their children (leading to outbreaks of measles and the like) have learned the hard way. If everyone was healthy, there would be no one to catch swine flu from and all our health care costs would go down.)
4. Using phrasing like “questions have been raised” about global warming and saying that “someone hacked into the files” of a research institute makes it sound like your source is a chain-letter email. The scientific community is agreed on this, as they are on evolution – and take that as you will if you’re not a (theistic) evolutionist. But EVEN IF global warming were not linked to carbon emissions, CARBON EMISSIONS are linked to carbon emissions. In other words, Pres. Obama and environmentalists are trying to find ways to lower pollution levels around the world, which improves the planet for everyone and falls right in line with the command to steward the earth.
5. The war in Iraq is still happening, and it was never stopped when Pres. W. Bush was in office. Just because he hung a “Mission Accomplished” banner doesn’t mean that a single soldier was withdrawn from combat. At this point, though I may not agree with further prosecution of war, if we left Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be in worse international and domestic positions than they were before we declared war on them, and more global instability means more chance of trouble for everyone. We’ve made their problems our problems, and now fixing them is at least in part our responsibility. One would hope that some of the infrastructure and governmental issues in those countries would be on their way to resolution by June of next year. The billions spent on that are not more than was spent during the Pres. W. Bush administration, and they should go towards repairing our part of the mess.
6. The questions of national debt and personal debt are different. And yet, Americans DO spend more than they earn, and they ARE in a great deal of personal debt. Thanks to changed bankruptcy laws under Pres. W. Bush, most American will not be able to discharge their debt through declaring bankruptcy.
7. There’s no evidence that putting America into vast debt – a policy which began perforce thanks to policies that long predate Pres. Obama’s election and inauguration – would turn America communist. In fact, the best historical example of a people plunged into hideous debt who clamored for regime change is pre-Hitlerian Germany. In that case, you should be accusing Pres. Obama of being fascist, not socialist.
But he doesn’t sound or act like much like a fascist – and with Pres. W. Bush’s administration spying on the American people through illegal wire-tapping and checking up on what books they check out of the library, Pres. Obama doesn’t sound comparatively much like “Big Brother,” either – so maybe we should be looking out for a demagogue who promises to get us OUT of debt to “transform” our society into the nightmare you feel it’s becoming. Maybe we should be on the lookout for someone whose rhetoric sounds like Hitler’s.
8. You suggest that we “stand” together and do something, but it’s unclear what you’re recommending be done. Elect Republicans in the next election? (Even though it’s the deregulation of the “too big to fail” banks that Republicans supported that has left us in this mess? Even though in deregulating these banks, Republicans have had as much to do with the failure of small businesses as Democrats possibly could?) Or would you support a third party? Or are you simply suggesting we pray for the second coming before we have to worry about it?
I’m interested to hear how you’d solve these issues...really. I'd like to see positive suggestions for these problems wherever I see critique of them. Maybe we could all collectively come up with something creative enough to work that way.
PSA: My response to "Make a Man Out of You" editorial from Swinging Bridge
Here's the article.
Here's my response:
Zachary,
While I appreciate your willingness to take on a topic that I think needs a lot of serious looking-into -- what it means to be a "man" in today's society -- and while I'm glad you're living up to the standards you've set for yourself in your (and your brothers') relationships, I'm disappointed to see that this article revolves almost exclusively around what men should not be doing with the women they date.
In other words, you've let the issue be determined by exactly those who are pressing us to get what we can (you're referring to sex, in particular, and virtually exclusively) rather than to suggest other things that "make" a man. There aren't even any really concrete suggestions on how men are supposed to "honor" the women they're with.
What I'd like to see, beyond this, is a constructive discussion of what it means to be human, and how humans may define themselves as men (or women). So much of the rhetoric of masculinity has been used, I believe incorrectly, to justify war and national policies based on the use of force or the loss of freedoms (see the Patriot Act) that I think there's a lot of potential material out there for this kind of discussion. What does it really mean to "be a man"? Is it a set of actions? How does being a man relate to having a male body -- are they always correlated? Or are there extra requirements for "manliness"?
I'd also like to see a closer look into how "honor" relates to women, and particularly to their status as virgins or not-virgins. How are these terms used, and how and why are they relevant today? How do they relate to past eras when women could be bought and sold, or rejected on the basis of non-virginity? How do they relate to questions (in the past) of determining paternity in a patrilineal society? In what ways do we need to redefine "honor" for women, to release the concept of "honor" from the historical trappings of property ownership, etc.?
On the other hand, I remember what it was like to be in the Messiah "bubble," where so much revolves around the opposite sex, how to interact with them and what a good result would be for those interactions (i.e. an engagement ring by spring senior year). I can understand how your article speaks more to that audience than to the world at large. I still hope you'll consider looking into the question of what "masculinity" is, and write a new article about being "a man" -- one that problematizes some of the assumptions that pervade both secular and Christian-college society.
(And on a personal note, I'm hoping you don't quote "Wild At Heart" as part of that...but that's just personal.)
I look forward to reading it.
Here's my response:
Zachary,
While I appreciate your willingness to take on a topic that I think needs a lot of serious looking-into -- what it means to be a "man" in today's society -- and while I'm glad you're living up to the standards you've set for yourself in your (and your brothers') relationships, I'm disappointed to see that this article revolves almost exclusively around what men should not be doing with the women they date.
In other words, you've let the issue be determined by exactly those who are pressing us to get what we can (you're referring to sex, in particular, and virtually exclusively) rather than to suggest other things that "make" a man. There aren't even any really concrete suggestions on how men are supposed to "honor" the women they're with.
What I'd like to see, beyond this, is a constructive discussion of what it means to be human, and how humans may define themselves as men (or women). So much of the rhetoric of masculinity has been used, I believe incorrectly, to justify war and national policies based on the use of force or the loss of freedoms (see the Patriot Act) that I think there's a lot of potential material out there for this kind of discussion. What does it really mean to "be a man"? Is it a set of actions? How does being a man relate to having a male body -- are they always correlated? Or are there extra requirements for "manliness"?
I'd also like to see a closer look into how "honor" relates to women, and particularly to their status as virgins or not-virgins. How are these terms used, and how and why are they relevant today? How do they relate to past eras when women could be bought and sold, or rejected on the basis of non-virginity? How do they relate to questions (in the past) of determining paternity in a patrilineal society? In what ways do we need to redefine "honor" for women, to release the concept of "honor" from the historical trappings of property ownership, etc.?
On the other hand, I remember what it was like to be in the Messiah "bubble," where so much revolves around the opposite sex, how to interact with them and what a good result would be for those interactions (i.e. an engagement ring by spring senior year). I can understand how your article speaks more to that audience than to the world at large. I still hope you'll consider looking into the question of what "masculinity" is, and write a new article about being "a man" -- one that problematizes some of the assumptions that pervade both secular and Christian-college society.
(And on a personal note, I'm hoping you don't quote "Wild At Heart" as part of that...but that's just personal.)
I look forward to reading it.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Local Trivia, Waltham: A(wo)menities
In the women's bathroom in Brown, Brandeis University:
Two hooks inside the stall (for purse and coat)
Two sinks
Full paper towel dispenser
Full soap dispenser
Air freshener sprayer
Incense sticks and burner stand
Giant mirror that can be approached but is also full-length
Small stand for placing objects on, or changing diapers, outside the stall, with three drawers
Small stand for placing objects on, in the stall, with three drawers; in top drawer, a piece of paper that says "I wonder how many people look in here. Initial if you looked," and a pen. Nine sets of initials appear on the paper (including mine).
Two hooks inside the stall (for purse and coat)
Two sinks
Full paper towel dispenser
Full soap dispenser
Air freshener sprayer
Incense sticks and burner stand
Giant mirror that can be approached but is also full-length
Small stand for placing objects on, or changing diapers, outside the stall, with three drawers
Small stand for placing objects on, in the stall, with three drawers; in top drawer, a piece of paper that says "I wonder how many people look in here. Initial if you looked," and a pen. Nine sets of initials appear on the paper (including mine).
PSA: Movies in which the main characters really should have known better by then
Gremlins 2
Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves
Home Alone 2
Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves
Home Alone 2
Monday, January 18, 2010
PSA: My response to Gay at Messiah article comments
Here's the article site.
Ajay -- what evidence do you have that Republicans, or right-wing movements, have been protectors of "Judeo-Christian influence" in American society? Does free-market capitalism sound like the effective communism in the early church? Or does it sound more like the money-lenders and sellers in the marketplace that are condemned not only by the OT, but by Jesus himself (who never uttered a word on homosexuality)?
I think that if you check your American history, you'll find the rise of the religious right, of which I assume you're a part, is only recent, and is not without its biblical issues. Republicans are not God's chosen party. Then or now.
Dmm, in the epistles, Paul "gives in" to the idea that people might need to get married, even though he says it's better to remain unmarried -- he, not God -- because they may be weak. In those times, marriage was much more a practical matter, and much more likely to happen by the time a person was college-age; our times are much different. We probably DO have more unmarried people than they had in Paul's area in Paul's time, because we have more choice than we used to. People are basing marriages on very different factors than they used to, including romantic feelings of love. I'm not saying this necessarily changes the stance on extramarital sex, but it should be considered.
At the same time, your argument is more compelling than the arguments of people who say "you can't have sex outside of marriage! And gay people can't get married!" and then use that same argument to support their position against gay marriage. It's a silly, solipsistic way of thinking. If we'd LET gay people get married, they could have sex in the bounds of marriage as straight people are supposed to. If we're not going to let them, well, then what are they supposed to do? At least your answer -- remain permanently celibate -- makes some measure of sense. But it lacks any measure of the practicality of Paul's, and his advice on marriage was meant for a much different time in a different social situation.
I don't think the issue of the sexual slippery slope is a valid one, either. Homosexuality is not the same as pedaresty, which is not the same as bestiality, anymore than heterosexuality is either of those. That's why we have different words for those things. I understand that from a strict evangelical viewpoint, tainting yourself with any "sin" automatically leads to more and more, and more terrible, "sin," but I'd like to have more than a Wikipedia citation as proof that homosexuality and bestiality are somhow linked. (And then, that they are more linked than heterosexuality and bestiality. I doubt this is the case.)
As for Christians changing society, I'm not sure Jesus came to change society. Jesus seemed to focus on individuals, not policies, programs or Caesars. Yes, this leads to a change in society, and yes, Jesus threw over the tables of the money-lenders in the temples, but Jesus also told us to pay our taxes. And Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman at the well "well, it's a good thing you're not gay, because then I couldn't forgive you." I'm sure he would have mentioned something if he'd meant that.
Love covers over a multitude of sins. I know I won't change minds, and I'm not trying to (Ajay), but as slave-masters used to use Scripture to justify keeping people as slaves (and believe they were right), and as I know we all agree we're imperfect people with a bit too much pride, I hope to persuade you, if you come to a crossroads decision, to err on the side of love. It's the only thing that never fails.
Ajay -- what evidence do you have that Republicans, or right-wing movements, have been protectors of "Judeo-Christian influence" in American society? Does free-market capitalism sound like the effective communism in the early church? Or does it sound more like the money-lenders and sellers in the marketplace that are condemned not only by the OT, but by Jesus himself (who never uttered a word on homosexuality)?
I think that if you check your American history, you'll find the rise of the religious right, of which I assume you're a part, is only recent, and is not without its biblical issues. Republicans are not God's chosen party. Then or now.
Dmm, in the epistles, Paul "gives in" to the idea that people might need to get married, even though he says it's better to remain unmarried -- he, not God -- because they may be weak. In those times, marriage was much more a practical matter, and much more likely to happen by the time a person was college-age; our times are much different. We probably DO have more unmarried people than they had in Paul's area in Paul's time, because we have more choice than we used to. People are basing marriages on very different factors than they used to, including romantic feelings of love. I'm not saying this necessarily changes the stance on extramarital sex, but it should be considered.
At the same time, your argument is more compelling than the arguments of people who say "you can't have sex outside of marriage! And gay people can't get married!" and then use that same argument to support their position against gay marriage. It's a silly, solipsistic way of thinking. If we'd LET gay people get married, they could have sex in the bounds of marriage as straight people are supposed to. If we're not going to let them, well, then what are they supposed to do? At least your answer -- remain permanently celibate -- makes some measure of sense. But it lacks any measure of the practicality of Paul's, and his advice on marriage was meant for a much different time in a different social situation.
I don't think the issue of the sexual slippery slope is a valid one, either. Homosexuality is not the same as pedaresty, which is not the same as bestiality, anymore than heterosexuality is either of those. That's why we have different words for those things. I understand that from a strict evangelical viewpoint, tainting yourself with any "sin" automatically leads to more and more, and more terrible, "sin," but I'd like to have more than a Wikipedia citation as proof that homosexuality and bestiality are somhow linked. (And then, that they are more linked than heterosexuality and bestiality. I doubt this is the case.)
As for Christians changing society, I'm not sure Jesus came to change society. Jesus seemed to focus on individuals, not policies, programs or Caesars. Yes, this leads to a change in society, and yes, Jesus threw over the tables of the money-lenders in the temples, but Jesus also told us to pay our taxes. And Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman at the well "well, it's a good thing you're not gay, because then I couldn't forgive you." I'm sure he would have mentioned something if he'd meant that.
Love covers over a multitude of sins. I know I won't change minds, and I'm not trying to (Ajay), but as slave-masters used to use Scripture to justify keeping people as slaves (and believe they were right), and as I know we all agree we're imperfect people with a bit too much pride, I hope to persuade you, if you come to a crossroads decision, to err on the side of love. It's the only thing that never fails.
Accusations XIV
People who have 8 flower-girls at their weddings
People who pay the babysitter $5/hour
People who curse out your boyfriend because they wanted to play professional-style, full-rules Texas Hold 'Em and he expected just a good time hanging out with friends
People who pay the babysitter $5/hour
People who curse out your boyfriend because they wanted to play professional-style, full-rules Texas Hold 'Em and he expected just a good time hanging out with friends
Sunday, January 10, 2010
PSA: Give us your sick, huddled masses -- we'll make them sick the AMERICAN way.
According to this week's NYTimes magazine article "The Americanization of Mental Illness," definitions of mental illness around the world are being -- well -- Americanized.
There's a fascinating example of how anorexia used to present in Hong Kong patients, and how that changed after Hong Kongers were exposed to American definitions and interpretations of anorexia. The problem of anorexia got worse, and new patients gave different self-reports on why they were anorexic than they had before, saying they were afraid of being fat where previous patients had cited "bloated stomachs" as the reason for not eating.
This does sound American.
In fact, diagnosing mental illnesses with the DSM at all is very American. If we can pin down the constellation of symptoms for any given "disease" (some deserve this title; I'm not impugning the word's usefulness in every case), we can medicate it, and if we can medicate it, we'll eventually be able to cure it. That's the idea, anyway. Americans diagnose, medicate and cure. (Scientifically!)
A few years ago, I went to a medical conference on the mental disorder with which my mother was long-ago diagnosed. I read books about the disorder. I felt better, because researching and learning facts makes me feel prepared for the future and better able to interpret the past -- just like a good, educated American.
But I felt better despite the fact that this conference, and these books, all agreed that there was no definitive criteria for either diagnosing or treating this disorder. In fact, there are no prescription medications that are not off-label for it. It's known as "the garbage can diagnosis," one conference speaker admitted, and not only because doctors have to throw every medication available at it, and in different combinations, to try to "treat" the patient; since part of the diagnostic criteria for the illness is that patients are uncooperative with doctors, pretty much anyone who won't cooperate with diagnosis, the hospitals, the drug regimen, or anyone associated with the medical establishment, can be diagnosed as having this illness -- even when their uncooperativeness is not pathological (just annoying), or not diagnostically relevant and hiding a different illness.
No wonder there are no on-label drugs for this disorder. People who suffer from it are in the "misc." category, rattling around with other people who likely have completely different things.
So this is where our culture's take on mental illness and its treatment both succeeds and fails: I researched this illness and felt better, because research often makes educated Americans feel better; yet, the illness itself was not affected by my research, and the fact that it remains the "garbage can" diagnosis indicates that our tendency to "diagnose" every symptom is inadequate -- in at least this case, and probably many others.
Diagnosis gives the mentally ill an identity, and a goal (improving, or being cured); but it also identifies them in perhaps inaccurate ways.
Having lived in China, albeit several years ago now, I can see how this approach to life, spread over the whole world, might be highly problematic. China, and its lack of planning, and its "meiyou banfa," and its ridiculously overloaded bicycles that defied physical law, cured me of some Western illness: I stopped planning so meticulously, stopped trying to take responsibility for everything and let some things be, stopped trying to figure the limits of what was possible. It was lovely.
If we colonize the mental illnesses of people around the world, we may eliminate our own cures. We may eliminate the perspective that has to come with labeling anyone. We're endangering the species of preventive and ameliorative medicine that can come from cross-cultural encounters. It's the same as razing the rain forest without knowing whether one of its plants contain a cure for cancer.
I'm not sure what we can do about it. But I'm beginning to think anthropologists, sociologists and cultural studies students may soon become vital, as historians of diverse cultures that we need to carry on into the future, if only synthetically.
That's good news for me, I guess.
There's a fascinating example of how anorexia used to present in Hong Kong patients, and how that changed after Hong Kongers were exposed to American definitions and interpretations of anorexia. The problem of anorexia got worse, and new patients gave different self-reports on why they were anorexic than they had before, saying they were afraid of being fat where previous patients had cited "bloated stomachs" as the reason for not eating.
This does sound American.
In fact, diagnosing mental illnesses with the DSM at all is very American. If we can pin down the constellation of symptoms for any given "disease" (some deserve this title; I'm not impugning the word's usefulness in every case), we can medicate it, and if we can medicate it, we'll eventually be able to cure it. That's the idea, anyway. Americans diagnose, medicate and cure. (Scientifically!)
A few years ago, I went to a medical conference on the mental disorder with which my mother was long-ago diagnosed. I read books about the disorder. I felt better, because researching and learning facts makes me feel prepared for the future and better able to interpret the past -- just like a good, educated American.
But I felt better despite the fact that this conference, and these books, all agreed that there was no definitive criteria for either diagnosing or treating this disorder. In fact, there are no prescription medications that are not off-label for it. It's known as "the garbage can diagnosis," one conference speaker admitted, and not only because doctors have to throw every medication available at it, and in different combinations, to try to "treat" the patient; since part of the diagnostic criteria for the illness is that patients are uncooperative with doctors, pretty much anyone who won't cooperate with diagnosis, the hospitals, the drug regimen, or anyone associated with the medical establishment, can be diagnosed as having this illness -- even when their uncooperativeness is not pathological (just annoying), or not diagnostically relevant and hiding a different illness.
No wonder there are no on-label drugs for this disorder. People who suffer from it are in the "misc." category, rattling around with other people who likely have completely different things.
So this is where our culture's take on mental illness and its treatment both succeeds and fails: I researched this illness and felt better, because research often makes educated Americans feel better; yet, the illness itself was not affected by my research, and the fact that it remains the "garbage can" diagnosis indicates that our tendency to "diagnose" every symptom is inadequate -- in at least this case, and probably many others.
Diagnosis gives the mentally ill an identity, and a goal (improving, or being cured); but it also identifies them in perhaps inaccurate ways.
Having lived in China, albeit several years ago now, I can see how this approach to life, spread over the whole world, might be highly problematic. China, and its lack of planning, and its "meiyou banfa," and its ridiculously overloaded bicycles that defied physical law, cured me of some Western illness: I stopped planning so meticulously, stopped trying to take responsibility for everything and let some things be, stopped trying to figure the limits of what was possible. It was lovely.
If we colonize the mental illnesses of people around the world, we may eliminate our own cures. We may eliminate the perspective that has to come with labeling anyone. We're endangering the species of preventive and ameliorative medicine that can come from cross-cultural encounters. It's the same as razing the rain forest without knowing whether one of its plants contain a cure for cancer.
I'm not sure what we can do about it. But I'm beginning to think anthropologists, sociologists and cultural studies students may soon become vital, as historians of diverse cultures that we need to carry on into the future, if only synthetically.
That's good news for me, I guess.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
PSA: Boston to be renamed "David E. Kelleytown" when appearing on film.
So I've been watching Boston Legal this week, which long-term readers may have expected considering my long-term celebrity crush on James Spader, and with the American release of Ally McBeal in its entirety back in October, I've been thinking about David E. Kelley's dubious relationship with both the legal system and Boston.
Of course, living near Boston now, I find the references to 617 area-coded phone numbers charming and familiar; but I also find the visual references to the larger city buildings that open most episodes and are interspersed throughout like B-roll of the copier spitting out paper on the BBC Office, strange. I don't see those buildings on most days, partly because of the river problem (Boston is across the river from everywhere I'd actually go), and partly because they're just not that tall. Those buildings aren't Boston to me.
Maybe they are Boston to some people. But I don't think so.
Boston isn't a tall city like NYC, or made up of sprawling highways that necessitate helicoptery aerial shots from above like LA. It's a strange, quirky, kind-of-short, kind-of-cramped New England city. I'm not sure how I feel about the branding of Boston that happens on Boston Legal, or (as I recall) to a lesser extent on Ally McBeal.
To be fair, the show brands everything, which may be part of its genius: shots of lawyer's hands in the court room are focused on and refocused, given close-up time as much as their faces; Candice Bergen and William Shatner came on board as already-established brand names in their own rights; Shatner's "Denny Crane" is an obsessive and shameless self-brander who repeats his name to anyone who can hear anytime he says anything remotely interesting. David E. Kelley has always had a "thing" for this kind of self-promoting satire, which is what makes David E. Kelley, himself, a brand.
So if Kelley's version of what we see when we look at or think of Boston is quirky and branded, that makes sense. I say let's give him his version of Boston, which helps him produce characters that get away with discussing current events -- or ones that were current at the time the shows aired, which is rare -- on national TV. But let's admit that this Boston is not a real place. You can't go there. When David E. Kelley has been involved in the process, it should be considered a product of his inspired hubris rather than a reflection of reality. Even those of David E. Kelley's shows not taking place in Boston are filmed in one place, and that's David E. Kelleytown.
Still, it's an interesting place to visit, even if it's not where I live.
Of course, living near Boston now, I find the references to 617 area-coded phone numbers charming and familiar; but I also find the visual references to the larger city buildings that open most episodes and are interspersed throughout like B-roll of the copier spitting out paper on the BBC Office, strange. I don't see those buildings on most days, partly because of the river problem (Boston is across the river from everywhere I'd actually go), and partly because they're just not that tall. Those buildings aren't Boston to me.
Maybe they are Boston to some people. But I don't think so.
Boston isn't a tall city like NYC, or made up of sprawling highways that necessitate helicoptery aerial shots from above like LA. It's a strange, quirky, kind-of-short, kind-of-cramped New England city. I'm not sure how I feel about the branding of Boston that happens on Boston Legal, or (as I recall) to a lesser extent on Ally McBeal.
To be fair, the show brands everything, which may be part of its genius: shots of lawyer's hands in the court room are focused on and refocused, given close-up time as much as their faces; Candice Bergen and William Shatner came on board as already-established brand names in their own rights; Shatner's "Denny Crane" is an obsessive and shameless self-brander who repeats his name to anyone who can hear anytime he says anything remotely interesting. David E. Kelley has always had a "thing" for this kind of self-promoting satire, which is what makes David E. Kelley, himself, a brand.
So if Kelley's version of what we see when we look at or think of Boston is quirky and branded, that makes sense. I say let's give him his version of Boston, which helps him produce characters that get away with discussing current events -- or ones that were current at the time the shows aired, which is rare -- on national TV. But let's admit that this Boston is not a real place. You can't go there. When David E. Kelley has been involved in the process, it should be considered a product of his inspired hubris rather than a reflection of reality. Even those of David E. Kelley's shows not taking place in Boston are filmed in one place, and that's David E. Kelleytown.
Still, it's an interesting place to visit, even if it's not where I live.
Friday, January 8, 2010
PSQ: Modern-day gods
P.C. and I somehow ended up in a discussion the other day about modern-day Roman/Greek/Norse god equivalents, as we drove up I-84 and he mocked the potential traffic-jam that is Hartford at 5 p.m.
I superstitiously flailed about and rebuffed him for tempting the traffic gods to punish us with a serious jam on I-91, which we were switching over to just following his declaration of jam-less victory, and wondered who he would have to apologize to to get us out of this potential mess.
I decided it might be Poseiden, the god of the sea who (when ship transport was fast, efficient and common) used to preside over the main long-distance transportation routes, and named the slightly lower-level (middle-management) god of Interstates, almost certainly under Poseiden's jurisdiction, "Highwayden."
But of course, this begs the question: what other neo-Roman gods might we need these days?
Tell me what we need specific gods for, and I'll see what I can do about directing you to the modern god who "does that."
I superstitiously flailed about and rebuffed him for tempting the traffic gods to punish us with a serious jam on I-91, which we were switching over to just following his declaration of jam-less victory, and wondered who he would have to apologize to to get us out of this potential mess.
I decided it might be Poseiden, the god of the sea who (when ship transport was fast, efficient and common) used to preside over the main long-distance transportation routes, and named the slightly lower-level (middle-management) god of Interstates, almost certainly under Poseiden's jurisdiction, "Highwayden."
But of course, this begs the question: what other neo-Roman gods might we need these days?
Tell me what we need specific gods for, and I'll see what I can do about directing you to the modern god who "does that."
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Local Trivia: Found item
After months of intermittent worry and lackadaisical searching, I finally looked in the pile of plastic bags next to the sink today and found it: my 7-up cup.
Those who know my history with the cup, which I got from a crane machine when I was in fourth grade, will rejoice with me.
I haven't yet taken a celebratory drink from the 7-up cup, but I will.
Oh, I will.
Those who know my history with the cup, which I got from a crane machine when I was in fourth grade, will rejoice with me.
I haven't yet taken a celebratory drink from the 7-up cup, but I will.
Oh, I will.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
PSA: People who were in Galaxy Quest who went on to even more awesome things
Samuel Lloyd (Ted on Scrubs)
Justin Long (Mac on PC/Mac commercials; Alex in He's Just Not That Into You; also the main guy in Accepted)
Tony Shaloub (Monk)
Rainn Wilson (Dwight on The Office)
Justin Long (Mac on PC/Mac commercials; Alex in He's Just Not That Into You; also the main guy in Accepted)
Tony Shaloub (Monk)
Rainn Wilson (Dwight on The Office)
Friday, January 1, 2010
20x10: Ten New Year's resolutions
I will drink more chocolate Vitasoy this year than I did last year by remembering how awesome it is whenever I go to the Asian market.
I will take at least three "significant" trips.
I will take at least three "significant" trips.
I will cultivate my prejudice against people who drive mini-vans through rehearsal and witty, biting commentary.
I will watch at least one episode of American Idol, since Ellen is on it as a judge this year.
I will complete my M.A. in Cultural Production (December 2010).
I will visit at least one museum.
I will make at least one new friend.
I will invent at least two new kinds of purses.
I will work the following quotes into conversation as often as possible: "Godzilla doesn't care what humans do"; "you can't just go around..."; "I'm not a real doctor but I am a real worm."
I will save the request for P.C. to do "the dog from New Jersey voice" for real emergencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)