I don't tweet. It has never really occurred to me that I should or need to. But I often find what other's tweet that hits various media outlets as important, newsworthy, or discuss-able to be thought-provoking. I loved the art that came from Kanye's tweets:
www.etsy.com/listing/93855567/the-best-of-kanye-tweets-sticker-pack?ref=sr_gallery_2&ga_search_query=kanye+west+tweet&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=ZZ&ga_min=0&ga_max=0&ga_ref=auto5&ga_search_type=all
And of course, this year's Tour de France wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the tweets of Team Sky's wives and girlfriends!
And now with the Olympics, tweets are big again, and CNN's faith blog has been perusing and posting about athletes expressing their faith. The feature included a slide show, presenting these tweeting competitors on the medal stand or in a moment athletic glory. All of the athletes presented are Christians, and underneath, almost as an aside, are issues related to expressions of faith of non-Christians. Muslim women who defy the norm in their sports to wear the veil. Concerns over balancing Ramadan with sport. And no mention of Aly Raisman-- US gold medalist on floor exercise who dedicated her routine as a tribute to the slain Israeli athletes in 1972. Glaring omission from this American media outlet, given the IOC didn't seek to contribute or commemorate the slaughter in any way.
This isn't to begrudge or belittle the expressions of faith of the Christian athletes, but to ponder why the expressions of other faiths don't warrant respect and praise from their countrymen and women and their various national media outlets. Shouldn't Aly Raisman's pride in being a Jewish American be worthy of the same respect shown to the Christian pride of Lolo Jones?
rules at the cumae ruins
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Rape Jokes in a Crowded Theater
When I read this at http://rhinestonesandtelephones.blogspot.com/ I was horrified and disgusted.
(my words
1- Rape jokes aren't funny.
2- I took enough classes on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment, and I've seen a lot of Law and Order... this speech qualifies as an incitation to violence.
I get that comedians trade in making fun of things that are often seen as off-limits as objects of comedy-- illness. Ugliness. Stereotypes. Human foibles. The list goes on. I've certainly had discussions with friends and colleagues about whether or not we can or should joke about Hitler, fascism, genocide, cancer, and the list goes on. Sometimes humor CAN bring a sense of awareness, or enhance understanding, or be cathartic. But some things are too destructive to be treated with a giggle. And then when confronted, the response should never be to make joke that basically offers instructions to violate-- physically-- another person.
Not funny, Tosh. And Laugh Factory should be embarrassed of their response. )
Reblogged from Cookies for Breakfast:
{So a Girl Walks into a Comedy Club….
This is something that happened to a friend of mine in her own words.
“So, on Friday night my friend and I were at her house and wanted to get out and do something for the evening. We brainstormed ideas and she brought up the idea of seeing a show at the Laugh Factory. I’d never been, I thought it sounded fun, so we went. We saw that Dane Cook, along some other names we didn’t recognize we’re playing, and while we both agree that Cook’s style is not really our taste we were opened-minded about what the others had to offer. And we figured even good ol’ Dane can be funny sometimes, even if it’s not really our thing. Anyhoo, his act was actually fine, but then when his was done, some other guy I didn’t recognize took the stage. Of course, I would find out later this was Daniel Tosh, but at the time I thought he was just some yahoo who somehow got a gig going on after Cook. I honestly thought he was an amateur because he didn’t seem that comfortable on stage and seemed to have a really awkward presence.
So Tosh then starts making some very generalizing, declarative statements about rape jokes always being funny, how can a rape joke not be funny, rape is hilarious, etc. I don’t know why he was so repetitive about it but I felt provoked because I, for one, DON’T find them funny and never have. So I didn't appreciate Daniel Tosh (or anyone!) telling me I should find them funny. So I yelled out, “Actually, rape jokes are never funny!”
I did it because, even though being “disruptive” is against my nature, I felt that sitting there and saying nothing, or leaving quietly, would have been against my values as a person and as a woman. I don’t sit there while someone tells me how I should feel about something as profound and damaging as rape.
After I called out to him, Tosh paused for a moment. Then, he says, “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…” and I, completely stunned and finding it hard to process what was happening but knowing i needed to get out of there, immediately nudged my friend, who was also completely stunned, and we high-tailed it out of there. It was humiliating, of course, especially as the audience guffawed in response to Tosh, their eyes following us as we made our way out of there. I didn’t hear the rest of what he said about me.
Now in the lobby, I spoke with the girl at the will-call desk, and demanded to see the manager. The manager on duty quickly came out to speak with me, and she was profusely apologetic, and seemed genuinely sorry about what had happened, but of course we received no refund for our tickets, but instead a comped pair of tickets, although she admitted she understood if we never wanted to come back. I can imagine the Laugh Factory doesn’t really have a policy in place for what happens when a woman has to leave in a hurry because the person onstage is hurling violent words about sexual violence at her. Although maybe I’m not the first girl to have that happen to her.
I should probably add that having to basically flee while Tosh was enthusing about how hilarious it would be if I was gang-raped in that small, claustrophobic room was pretty viscerally terrifying and threatening all the same, even if the actual scenario was unlikely to take place. The suggestion of it is violent enough and was meant to put me in my place.”
Please reblog and spread the word.}
(my words
1- Rape jokes aren't funny.
2- I took enough classes on the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment, and I've seen a lot of Law and Order... this speech qualifies as an incitation to violence.
I get that comedians trade in making fun of things that are often seen as off-limits as objects of comedy-- illness. Ugliness. Stereotypes. Human foibles. The list goes on. I've certainly had discussions with friends and colleagues about whether or not we can or should joke about Hitler, fascism, genocide, cancer, and the list goes on. Sometimes humor CAN bring a sense of awareness, or enhance understanding, or be cathartic. But some things are too destructive to be treated with a giggle. And then when confronted, the response should never be to make joke that basically offers instructions to violate-- physically-- another person.
Not funny, Tosh. And Laugh Factory should be embarrassed of their response. )
Reblogged from Cookies for Breakfast:
{So a Girl Walks into a Comedy Club….
This is something that happened to a friend of mine in her own words.
“So, on Friday night my friend and I were at her house and wanted to get out and do something for the evening. We brainstormed ideas and she brought up the idea of seeing a show at the Laugh Factory. I’d never been, I thought it sounded fun, so we went. We saw that Dane Cook, along some other names we didn’t recognize we’re playing, and while we both agree that Cook’s style is not really our taste we were opened-minded about what the others had to offer. And we figured even good ol’ Dane can be funny sometimes, even if it’s not really our thing. Anyhoo, his act was actually fine, but then when his was done, some other guy I didn’t recognize took the stage. Of course, I would find out later this was Daniel Tosh, but at the time I thought he was just some yahoo who somehow got a gig going on after Cook. I honestly thought he was an amateur because he didn’t seem that comfortable on stage and seemed to have a really awkward presence.
So Tosh then starts making some very generalizing, declarative statements about rape jokes always being funny, how can a rape joke not be funny, rape is hilarious, etc. I don’t know why he was so repetitive about it but I felt provoked because I, for one, DON’T find them funny and never have. So I didn't appreciate Daniel Tosh (or anyone!) telling me I should find them funny. So I yelled out, “Actually, rape jokes are never funny!”
I did it because, even though being “disruptive” is against my nature, I felt that sitting there and saying nothing, or leaving quietly, would have been against my values as a person and as a woman. I don’t sit there while someone tells me how I should feel about something as profound and damaging as rape.
After I called out to him, Tosh paused for a moment. Then, he says, “Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by like, 5 guys right now? Like right now? What if a bunch of guys just raped her…” and I, completely stunned and finding it hard to process what was happening but knowing i needed to get out of there, immediately nudged my friend, who was also completely stunned, and we high-tailed it out of there. It was humiliating, of course, especially as the audience guffawed in response to Tosh, their eyes following us as we made our way out of there. I didn’t hear the rest of what he said about me.
Now in the lobby, I spoke with the girl at the will-call desk, and demanded to see the manager. The manager on duty quickly came out to speak with me, and she was profusely apologetic, and seemed genuinely sorry about what had happened, but of course we received no refund for our tickets, but instead a comped pair of tickets, although she admitted she understood if we never wanted to come back. I can imagine the Laugh Factory doesn’t really have a policy in place for what happens when a woman has to leave in a hurry because the person onstage is hurling violent words about sexual violence at her. Although maybe I’m not the first girl to have that happen to her.
I should probably add that having to basically flee while Tosh was enthusing about how hilarious it would be if I was gang-raped in that small, claustrophobic room was pretty viscerally terrifying and threatening all the same, even if the actual scenario was unlikely to take place. The suggestion of it is violent enough and was meant to put me in my place.”
Please reblog and spread the word.}
Monday, June 25, 2012
Life is better when you're conventionally attractive
And in other news, the Earth is round!
So I've stated the obvious. Most people know that conventionally attractive people have advantages. Any number of studies bear that fact out. They tend to marry better, get promoted, get jobs, make more money, etc. than people who don't so neatly typical definitions of beauty or attractiveness. But one place, on TV no less, where typical definitions of beauty seem less relevant is the Food Network. Oh sure, some of the chefs on the Network fit traditional definitions of attractiveness-- Giada comes quickly to mind, as does Bobby Flay or the muscle chef Robert Irvine. But then there's the decidedly unique looks of Guy Fieri, Michael Symon, or Paula Deen-- attractive, sure, but older and larger than is typically envisioned as stereotypically attractive. Stocky Jeff Mauro won last year's round of Next Food Network Star over the petite and pretty Susie Jimenez. And watching Chopped and Iron Chef routinely have a flock of people that fall outside of beauty norms-- by age, size, or stylistic choices to reflect membership in a subculture.
If you watch The Next Food Network Star, you know the Network producers are big on emphasizing that a Food Network success has 2 things-- great cooking chops and an inviting personality. Hence 2 of the show's frontrunners at this point in the competition are Justin and Michelle-- 2 contestants that are easier to describe as quirky looking than as conventionally attractive. Justin is young, skinny, with poufy, almost pompadour hair. He's pale and has a penchant for T shirts and skinny jeans. He also seems to wear make-up, with his rosy cheeks and pink lips. Indeed, a question he gets regularly on the show is "do you wear make up?" He doesn't. He's cute, in a goofy, somewhat awkward seeming way. And the look matches his personality-- funny, somewhat sarcastic, dry humor. And we've been seeing he can cook. Michelle has bleach blond hair, cut short. She wears it with a large, spiky "fin" at the center, kind faux-hawk style. She eschews make up and gravitates to baggy jeans and shirts. She too has a lively personality, good sense of humor, and an engaging TV presence. And she can cook. Both of their appearances challenge gendered conventions of what makes a person attractive. But their personalities and cooking skills have them leading the competition-- stereotypical gendered norms of attractiveness be damned. And that is awesome. I would a show from either of these 2. I would rather cook with 2 people who know what they're doing and are fun to spend time with than someone who is attractive but less engaging and/or knowledgeable. It isn't about what someone looks like.
Except when it is. The twist to this season is that viewers will be participating in the selection process. Although I haven't looked at the postings by viewers at www.foodnetwork.com, but early in the season, Martita was leading viewers comments as the chef to beat. Martita is gorgeous-- curvaceous, large-eyed, curly hair, and flawless make up. And some of those comments reflected that the audience liked her because of her looks. The comments on her food are excellent; she can cook. But she typically comes across without a lot of personality in her screen tests. Last night, she left just over 30 seconds of dead air during her taping. She stood and smiled. She tilted her head. But she said nothing, just looked at the judging panel.For a TV personality that should have been the kiss of death. But it wasn't. The producers kept Martita, whom they admitted had yet to bring any personality to the competition after 6 weeks, over Emily, whose concept was Retro Rad.
In retro sewing circles, Emily has been a figure. After all, she embraces a vintage, retro style in her appearance choices and cooking. Until last night, the producers have praised her cooking and her quirky personality. Emily's 90 second bit ran short, but unlike Martita, she covered by eating her food and talking about the taste. She showed a good instinct and tried to recover. It was her first major misstep in the competition. Both Martita and Emily found themselves in the bottom cook off to try to stay. They both had a chance to cook and do a screen test to prove they had star quality.
Part of what the producers emphasize as personality is bringing a story-- about yourself, your approach, your dish, whatever. And Martita brought a story. It wasn't a great performance. Her story was about having some sisters and making a dish that her youngest sister liked. The judges liked the food. Emily talking about liking retro cuisine and how you could bring it to life today. She didn't have a story, even though Alton (her mentor) encouraged her to discuss why she was so drawn to the retro idea and style.
What happened, then, was a consistent performer who didn't have a story was dropped in favor of an inconsistent performer with a story. But is that the whole story? Does it really make sense to emphasize Emily's one bad day and privilege Martita's one good story? Does it make sense to overlook Emily's strong showings to this point and Martita's lack of personality? Well, it doesn't, unless you're thinking the curvaceous glamour girl has an advantage over quirky but cute looks. At some level, we have to trust the producers' and judges' assessments of skills because, sadly, we don't get to try the food. And I agree-- Martita's concept-- make Mexican at home-- is more unique. Emily's Retro Rad concept is different, but the basis is classic American cooking, and there is no shortage of American food shows on the Food Network. I like Martita. Her food sounds good. But I haven't been dazzled by her screen personality yet. And as a result, I'm not inclined, at this point, to watch a show she helms. I liked Emily's concept, found her engaging, and I would've given Retro Rad a shot.
What I found myself thinking, then, was another person with somewhat quirky (not conventionally pretty) looks was 1 too many. Especially in comparison to the other quirky types, whose performances had been better.
End of the humorless post.
Next up: my fabric stash is HUGE, but not huge enough for my needs today.
So I've stated the obvious. Most people know that conventionally attractive people have advantages. Any number of studies bear that fact out. They tend to marry better, get promoted, get jobs, make more money, etc. than people who don't so neatly typical definitions of beauty or attractiveness. But one place, on TV no less, where typical definitions of beauty seem less relevant is the Food Network. Oh sure, some of the chefs on the Network fit traditional definitions of attractiveness-- Giada comes quickly to mind, as does Bobby Flay or the muscle chef Robert Irvine. But then there's the decidedly unique looks of Guy Fieri, Michael Symon, or Paula Deen-- attractive, sure, but older and larger than is typically envisioned as stereotypically attractive. Stocky Jeff Mauro won last year's round of Next Food Network Star over the petite and pretty Susie Jimenez. And watching Chopped and Iron Chef routinely have a flock of people that fall outside of beauty norms-- by age, size, or stylistic choices to reflect membership in a subculture.
If you watch The Next Food Network Star, you know the Network producers are big on emphasizing that a Food Network success has 2 things-- great cooking chops and an inviting personality. Hence 2 of the show's frontrunners at this point in the competition are Justin and Michelle-- 2 contestants that are easier to describe as quirky looking than as conventionally attractive. Justin is young, skinny, with poufy, almost pompadour hair. He's pale and has a penchant for T shirts and skinny jeans. He also seems to wear make-up, with his rosy cheeks and pink lips. Indeed, a question he gets regularly on the show is "do you wear make up?" He doesn't. He's cute, in a goofy, somewhat awkward seeming way. And the look matches his personality-- funny, somewhat sarcastic, dry humor. And we've been seeing he can cook. Michelle has bleach blond hair, cut short. She wears it with a large, spiky "fin" at the center, kind faux-hawk style. She eschews make up and gravitates to baggy jeans and shirts. She too has a lively personality, good sense of humor, and an engaging TV presence. And she can cook. Both of their appearances challenge gendered conventions of what makes a person attractive. But their personalities and cooking skills have them leading the competition-- stereotypical gendered norms of attractiveness be damned. And that is awesome. I would a show from either of these 2. I would rather cook with 2 people who know what they're doing and are fun to spend time with than someone who is attractive but less engaging and/or knowledgeable. It isn't about what someone looks like.
Except when it is. The twist to this season is that viewers will be participating in the selection process. Although I haven't looked at the postings by viewers at www.foodnetwork.com, but early in the season, Martita was leading viewers comments as the chef to beat. Martita is gorgeous-- curvaceous, large-eyed, curly hair, and flawless make up. And some of those comments reflected that the audience liked her because of her looks. The comments on her food are excellent; she can cook. But she typically comes across without a lot of personality in her screen tests. Last night, she left just over 30 seconds of dead air during her taping. She stood and smiled. She tilted her head. But she said nothing, just looked at the judging panel.For a TV personality that should have been the kiss of death. But it wasn't. The producers kept Martita, whom they admitted had yet to bring any personality to the competition after 6 weeks, over Emily, whose concept was Retro Rad.
In retro sewing circles, Emily has been a figure. After all, she embraces a vintage, retro style in her appearance choices and cooking. Until last night, the producers have praised her cooking and her quirky personality. Emily's 90 second bit ran short, but unlike Martita, she covered by eating her food and talking about the taste. She showed a good instinct and tried to recover. It was her first major misstep in the competition. Both Martita and Emily found themselves in the bottom cook off to try to stay. They both had a chance to cook and do a screen test to prove they had star quality.
Part of what the producers emphasize as personality is bringing a story-- about yourself, your approach, your dish, whatever. And Martita brought a story. It wasn't a great performance. Her story was about having some sisters and making a dish that her youngest sister liked. The judges liked the food. Emily talking about liking retro cuisine and how you could bring it to life today. She didn't have a story, even though Alton (her mentor) encouraged her to discuss why she was so drawn to the retro idea and style.
What happened, then, was a consistent performer who didn't have a story was dropped in favor of an inconsistent performer with a story. But is that the whole story? Does it really make sense to emphasize Emily's one bad day and privilege Martita's one good story? Does it make sense to overlook Emily's strong showings to this point and Martita's lack of personality? Well, it doesn't, unless you're thinking the curvaceous glamour girl has an advantage over quirky but cute looks. At some level, we have to trust the producers' and judges' assessments of skills because, sadly, we don't get to try the food. And I agree-- Martita's concept-- make Mexican at home-- is more unique. Emily's Retro Rad concept is different, but the basis is classic American cooking, and there is no shortage of American food shows on the Food Network. I like Martita. Her food sounds good. But I haven't been dazzled by her screen personality yet. And as a result, I'm not inclined, at this point, to watch a show she helms. I liked Emily's concept, found her engaging, and I would've given Retro Rad a shot.
What I found myself thinking, then, was another person with somewhat quirky (not conventionally pretty) looks was 1 too many. Especially in comparison to the other quirky types, whose performances had been better.
End of the humorless post.
Next up: my fabric stash is HUGE, but not huge enough for my needs today.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
To wrap or shirt... oh, the trauma...
As I mentioned, I'm planning to sew along in the sew along with Sunni. She's selected Simplicity 1880, one of those Project Runway patterns. The pattern has both a shirt and wrap dress options. I opted for a wrap, initially, because it is generally a more flattering look on me. I thought this Vogue 8784 was a good substitute for the Simplicity
I like the 2 skirt options and the collar option.
Then, like I mentioned yesterday, I saw this L'Wren Scott shirtdress...
The more I looked at it, the more I've realized that what draws me to it is the print, and I like the kicky skirt that looks narrow through the waist and hips and opens lower. That looks like it would minimize excess fabric in places where I don't need excess, while keeping a chic, professional (yet fun) A-line skirt.
So my pattern seems to work, and I can trim the sleeves and make a black collar and enter this fabric
A gorgeously silky microfiber I've had for years.It will probably be a PITA as it is silky (slippery and shifty). I just need to make sure I have enough of it...
I like the 2 skirt options and the collar option.
Then, like I mentioned yesterday, I saw this L'Wren Scott shirtdress...
The more I looked at it, the more I've realized that what draws me to it is the print, and I like the kicky skirt that looks narrow through the waist and hips and opens lower. That looks like it would minimize excess fabric in places where I don't need excess, while keeping a chic, professional (yet fun) A-line skirt.
So my pattern seems to work, and I can trim the sleeves and make a black collar and enter this fabric
A gorgeously silky microfiber I've had for years.It will probably be a PITA as it is silky (slippery and shifty). I just need to make sure I have enough of it...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
I conflicted...
So I've decided to do the wrap/shirt dress sew along with Sunni over at A Fashionable Stitch. My initial thought was the wrap dress, but then I saw this shirtdress from L'Wren Scott's Resort collection.
j'adore!
So I have a conflict. In general, I don't think I look good in shirt dresses. But they are such a great, professional basic. What to do what to do?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)