I hate malls at Christmastime

It's been too long since I've worked in one. I'd forgotten the importance of keeping my head down and walking at as fast a clip as the crowds would let me manage. Because I'd forgotten that, every kiosk salesperson tried to sell me something. I managed to avoid (or outrun) most of them, but this amazingly life-like android saleswoman* cornered me and tried to sell some kind of home manicure thingy to me.

To me. Because home manicure thingies are just what a grown-up tomboy with (currently in need of cutting) short hair, no makeup, and a casual outfit that would be just as appropriate on a man would want. Sure. Maybe the android had been programmed with the idea that shining my nails would automatically sell me on becoming a proper woman. Maybe the android had been programmed to corner anyone who wasn't wearing nail-polish and I saved the burly construction worker behind me from the embarrassing fate of having his nails shined. I don't know, but you'd think that there would be better uses for life-like androids than kiosk sales at a mall.

I did manage to escape from the android, though, despite being unable to be mean to someone projecting niceness at me. Its actually a pity they programmed her to be so intense and unwilling to take no for an answer, because I think the home manicure thingy would appeal to my ex-roommate. I'm not about to recommend it to her now, though.


* Seriously. I have never before encountered anyone who so screamed "replicant." There was something programmed about all of her sales talk. It was too smooth, too much like ad copy, too...pre-recorded. She sounded like an info-mercial. It was bizarre.

Go forth and vote!

Tomorrow - Tuesday the 4th - is election day here in the United States. If you haven't already voted, take a few minutes this evening to prepare yourself for tomorrow. Find out if your state requires ID at the polls, find out what that ID is, and be sure and have it with you when you go to vote tomorrow. That information will be on your state website, or you can call the elections department. To the best of my knowledge, only Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, and South Dakota require photo ID (though some other states may want photo ID if this is the first time you've voted or if you've been voting mail-in). The other states that require ID generally have a broad list of possible IDs - for example, here in Colorado, not only are non-photo government IDs like pilot's licenses acceptable, but your utility statement works just fine.

If you believe you are being disenfranchised, call the political party of your choice or your candidate's campaign office. Chances are, they will want to help you get your vote in. If the voting machine tries to change your vote, get help and get the word out. I think we all want to see a nice, honest election.

So, go forth and vote.

Someone has to lose

The last time my parents visited, we got together with some in-town relatives to play cards. Improbably, our Rook game ended in an exact tie – both teams got exactly the score required to win. This resulted in the following:

Me: Wow, how often does that happen. Everybody won. ^_^
My grandfather: *starts dealing another hand*
Other in-town relatives: *various mutterings of having to find out who won*
Me: O.o?
My mom: *leans over to me* It’s not enough that someone wins, someone has to lose.
Me: … That explains a lot.

The world really does seem to be divided into those who need for someone to lose and those who don’t care if everyone wins. It shows up on MMO bulletin boards where people argue endlessly about whether everyone should be able to get/do/have everything with a bit of work or whether there should be some things that only an elite few can have (generally meaning that virtual dice rolls of a tiny chance are involved). More disturbingly, it shows up in politics, particularly when it comes to things like universal healthcare or anything else that can be seen as helping the disadvantaged.

It isn’t about competition, it isn’t about effort, it isn’t even about rewarding skill or ability; it’s…something else. To some people, it isn’t enough to have, earn, or gain something, it has to be something that other people don’t have. And the last thing those people want is to have to share or to help other people get, well, anything. It’s a mind set I can’t wrap my mind around.

Unfortunately, the concept that everyone can win, that there’s no reason to limit who can have access to things is just as foreign to them.

The problem with good-by-definition groups

The idea of an organization whose members are all, by mystical powers or by definition (or both), inherently good crops up here and there in sci-fi and fantasy, but that idea has never quite set right with me (even though it turns up in fiction I like). Perhaps the best known examples that I’m familiar with (and I’ve no doubt there are even more I’m not), are the Jedi in Star Wars and the Heralds of Valdemar in Mercedes Lackey’s Velgarth books. Though vastly different in many respects, both organizations fit the category of groups whose members you know are automatically good. And both drive me up the wall for that reason.

You see, while I enjoy Good vs Evil on the cosmic scale, when it comes to individual characters, I prefer something a bit more ambiguous and, dare I say it, realistic. And, in truth, the older I get, the more of a problem I have with Evil. I know, it sounds weird to find Good more believable than Evil, but look at it this way – it’s very plausible for someone to wish to be Good and try their hardest to do all the Right things and be a truly Good person, but it’s a lot harder (for me, at least) to swallow someone wishing to be Evil. As far as I can tell, looking at the real world, most people who have committed evil (or even Evil) acts were doing so for some kind of personal gain or because they thought they were doing Good.

Which leads us to the problem of good-by-definition groups. Or perhaps I should say the problems there of.

Now, the Jedi and the Heralds are somewhat different cases, even if they share the same, or most of the same, problems. The Jedi locate and train Force sensitive children to be light-side Force users who protect the galaxy (or at least the Republic) while swearing off personal attachments an, theoretically, anyway, emotional extremes and passions. Heralds are chosen by mystical Companions because they are good at heart and are trained to protect Valdemar while loving freely and generally otherwise having a normal (if likely to be messily short) lives. But the two organizations have pretty much the same job – mystically good guardians of their government and the people there in.

(I’m skipping other major problems with the Jedi, like, if being Force sensitive is hereditary, don’t you want Jedi to breed, not become celibate monks?)

So, the shared problems? Well, first off, rather like Evil, Good isn’t that simple. Unless the enemies of the Republic or of Valdemar are Evil, you would think a mystically Good organization would want to keep fighting to an absolute last resort, especially if they’re connected to or chosen by a cosmic Good. Granted, the enemies we’re shown in both sets of stories are generally Evil, but somehow neither quite addresses the conflict inherent in having the cosmically Good connected/chosen fighting for one particular country, however large. This smacks uncomfortably of the whole true race, God on our side kind of thing that we mostly don’t want to hear in the real world. Though a story that actually faced up to that and had their Good being, recognizably, our idea of evil could be pretty interesting. (And might well exist out there. I am known for preferring light fiction to the darker, deeper variety.)

There’s also the fact that having a Good organization either cuts out internal conflict or makes a bizarre hash of it. Star Wars: Episodes I-III are a good example of this. I can argue, convincingly, I think, that the Jedi are as responsible (or more responsible) for Anakin’s fall than Palpatine is. Did Lucas intend that message? If so, he didn’t make it quite clear enough, and if not, wow did he mess up. I can’t quite tell whether we’re supposed to view the Jedi as being mistaken in their ascetic world view or whether we’re supposed see Anakin’s refusal to follow it as the beginning of his fall. Now, partly this might be because we’re used to (or I’m used to) thinking of love and caring for others as a good thing, but I think part of the problem is that we’ve been told the Jedi are Good. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean infallible, but it certainly raises the question of what it means for them to be wrong about major issues.

The Heralds also have a problem (and, now that I think about it, there’s a certain similarity of situation here) in dealing with members who mess up due to emotional distress. In Magic’s Pawn, one young Herald goes kind of (very?) crazy after his twin brother is killed and ends up slaughtering the people responsible (and then some, if I remember right). His Companion repudiates him, making him no longer a Herald, and he kills himself. Um…the boy went mad, shouldn’t cosmic Good have stepped in there somewhere, preferably before the slaughter and helped him? Again, it isn’t that Good has to be infallible, it’s that Good’s mistakes (or the agent’s of Good’s mistakes) raise problematic questions. It doesn’t help that in the third book of that same series, Magic’s Price, the main character goes a bit crazy after being raped and tortured and kills the people responsible (and two more-or-less innocent bystanders) but his Companion helps him get sane again. Cosmic Good, you confuse me. (And, yes, I know the Companions are “human,” but still…where’s the consistency?)

Speaking of consistency, to return to Star Wars, Obi Wan, after defeating and maiming Anakin, leaves him to die of his wounds. Which seems to me to be pretty major Good failure there. (And possibly characterization failure.) There’s also the matter of the Jedi doing nothing to help the slaves on Tatooine, going so far as to not even help Anakin’s mother. If the Jedi are Good and slavery is at least evil, shouldn’t they do something? They’re barely presented as objecting.

Actually, some of these problems would still be problems if the organizations were merely centered on the idea of Good (or even good) and not cosmically backed up in any way. Their respective authors may have failed a smidge, there. But the problems wouldn’t seem as critical if the organizations were merely groups of people who wish to do good in organizations dedicated to doing good. Individuals and groups of individuals, trying to do their best, can and do screw up. But if they’re tied to the cosmic forces of Good in any strong way, there shouldn’t be major screw ups, especially not ones without explanation.

And I think the characters get short changed a little if they’re tied to Good. Not only is there the Chosen One problem (which I’ve ranted about before) but the world is more interesting if good and evil aren’t presented as Good and Evil, with appropriate baseball caps for everyone. Too much conflict, character growth, and complex plotting is tossed out when you hand out the baseball caps.

Perhaps I’ve just grown to want slightly deeper light fiction.

Feminist Fiction

I’ve finally realized why discussions of feminist fiction often leave me baffled. There are really two reasons, one more global and one more personal. You see, I hadn’t realized that there are actually three categories (broadly speaking) of feminist fiction: that which inspires, that which enlightens or educates, and that which is all about venting. I also hadn’t taken into account my tendency to interpret things in the darkest possible way.

It’s not surprising that a person who believes that the message of It’s a Wonderful Life is that good people should sacrifice their dreams for the benefit of others finds far fewer works of fiction inspiring than most people. It’s also not surprising that, given my tendency toward gloom, I’m not really into reading fiction to gain more insight into the horrors of the world. And as for venting, well that usually works best if one is in fairly strict agreement with the one venting, and not so well if one disagrees.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with fiction that does any of the above, and no requirement that fiction must be feminist. But it was always disconcerting to have someone tell me that a work of fiction was feminist, then go on to describe something that sounded practically anti-feminist to me. Of course tastes and interpretations vary, but there was also the problem of vocabulary.

Definition time.

Venting is a category that’s fairly self explanatory. In it go the works that complain, and presume you share the complaint. This would, I think, mostly be short fiction, though there might be longer works. It is, I’m afraid, a category I’ve been told about, not one I’ve read, so I’m hard pressed for a concrete example of what I mean. It addresses a problem all people (or, in the case of feminist venting, women) are assumed to have, or at least to commiserate with.

In the enlightening or educating category are works that address either speculative problems (as in The Handmaid’s Tale) or real life problems faced by, in the feminist case, women. They are written to prevent the future in their pages from happening, or to change the present injustices, or to make people aware of the past injustices.

A lot of fiction about women, regardless of genre, at least hovers at the edges of this category because the difficulties women face seem always to be addressed by them. It’s hard, for example, to think of a fantasy novel with a woman protagonist who doesn’t have to overcome being a woman and all that means to her faux-medieval culture. That inability to escape the confines of “womanhood” makes the works seem more educational than inspirational, at least to me.

The works I categorize as inspiring are those in which the protagonist is happy and successful – for certain values of successful. Their protagonists tackle their problems with energy and enthusiasm – you might even say they like their problems (whether they’d admit it or not). Adventure stories are, to me, the penultimate example of this. But adventure stories rarely have female leads, or, worse, when they do, the very thing that makes them inspiring is abandoned. But this, this is what I want when I say I want a feminist work of fiction. I want fiction with a woman protagonist who has fun, fiction that says, no, shouts from the rooftop, “You can do this!” And doesn’t have to add “even though you’re a woman.”

And that really is the problem I find with a lot of fiction intended to be feminist. The protagonist always has womanhood shackled to her ankle as a hindrance. They’re successful despite being a woman, they’re successful after they overcome their gender, they make it in a man’s world. I know that can be inspiring and I know that, to an extent, it’s realistic, but I can’t help feeling like it turns being a woman into, well, an albatross around the protagonist’s neck.

Maybe I’m overlooking how much other women do feel that way. Maybe that’s why it’s such a theme of feminist fiction. Maybe I’m not meant to lump being a woman in with the construct of a woman’s place in society when I read those books. Or maybe the authors lump the two together more than they intend. Maybe the simple fact that women in fiction tend to be women more than the men in fiction are men puts off my own gender fuzziness. I don’t know. I’d love to hear from people who feel differently about the enlightening category, or who find works like Alias, The Deed of Paksenarrion, or The Mists of Avalon to be inspiring. I want to understand the other point of view, even while I long to read something as inspiring as the Vorkosigan saga…but about a woman.

Weight loss ads are getting on my nerves

I've never been fond of weight loss ads, for a whole slew of reasons, but lately they've begun to make me feel rather stabby. I could accept the ads when they were mostly for weight loss programs, and stuck to the formula of "Want to lose weight? Join us." Those ads tend to feature both men and women and are fairly inoffensive. But now we have ads for weight loss pills and for weight loss surgeries. At least a failed program wouldn't (so far as I know) have a negative impact on your body, but pills have side effects and surgery...is not something one should just jump into. There's the little matter of it potentially killing you, for one thing.

There are the Alli ads that feature thin women and tell you in voice over that you have to...wait for it...change your diet and exercise. But with this marvelous pill, you'll lose weight faster than you would by just changing your diet and exercising. Because this pill stops you from absorbing some of the fat you eat, which means that if you eat too much fat in a meal you may experience "treatment effects" - "oily spotting, loose stools, and more frequent stools that may be hard to control." Well, that should teach people women to cut back on the fat, all right. Why women? Because the ads and the site almost exclusively feature images of women, many of whom are not overweight. Men either don't need to worry about their weight or can lose weight without taking a poo pill.

I'd say more about the many mail order weight loss pill ads, but I couldn't find any of them on line and I can't remember the names of the pills. But, again, they mainly feature women and they tend to say things about "unsightly body fat" and imply that pretty much everyone needs their product. I wish I could find them, because they are far more immediately disgusting than the other ads.

Then there's the Lapband ad that has overweight people listing what they would do "if they lost the weight," which might be accurate to how some overweight people feel, but seems both misleading and offensive. Losing weight won't necessarily mean you have fewer health problems, and it won't necessarily help with type 2 diabetes (not to mention at least some people can control that with diet) or cure your aching back, feet, or knees. And, unless you were very overweight, it won't make visiting an out of state relative any easier. And, in a culture that teaches women to hate their bodies, it's unlikely to make you feel better about shopping for clothes.

But the ad isn't the only thing that makes me feel stabby about Lapband. Read the first year dietary instructions. So, basically, you lose weight because you eat less and exercise. AAAARRRRRRGH!!!! Then why do you need to clamp something on your stomach that results in a longer list of things to be careful eating than they recommend for people with an ileostomy?! I mean, fuck, we're just supposed to be careful of fibrous stuff and popcorn, but lapbanded people, you better watch out for "dry meat, shrimp, untoasted or doughy bread, rice, peanut butter, fibrous vegetables like corn, asparagus, and celery, nuts, greasy or fried food, [and] membrane[s] of citrus fruits." Just how tiny do they make the opening? I mean, really.

Underlying all these anoyances are the reasons why I've never been fond of weight loss ads. Weight is not, in and of itself, a measure of health. A person can be thin and unhealthy and a person can be fat and healthy. That isn't the current fadish belief, but it's true. If you eat well, get exercise, and are happy, you will probably be healthy, regardless of your weight. If you eat crap, never exercise, and are miserable, you probably won't be healthy, again, regardless of your weight. (In fact, eating crap and not exercising might have something to do with being miserable.)

And, of course, there's the annoying fact that weight loss ads tend to be aimed more at women than men. Because women just have to be thin, you know. *stabby*

A note to bicyclists

Either (as you're supposed to) ride in the street and follow traffic laws, or (wrong, but sometimes understandable) ride on the sidewalk and act like a pedestrian. Do not mix the two; it confuses people. But, above all else, do not ride in the street and disregard all traffic laws, including those pertaining to stop lights. It gives drivers premature gray hair and may give you a premature death.