An Amber-Colored Life

Just a real teen talkin' about real teen issues.

Permalink
Permalink minusmanhattan:


Women turn out in large numbers, some carrying placards reading “We Want Beer,” for an anti-Prohibition parade and demonstration in Newark, New Jersey, on October 28, 1932.

Photograph via AP Images.

These are my ladies.
Permalink Sometimes, you just gotta stand up and do it.
Permalink monsterbeard:

leasthelpful:

With a title like Die Hard you’d think they’d at least die more reluctantly.

“I bought this for my three year old”

I love self-righteous yet totally stupid parents.
Permalink
Permalink (via An Amber-Colored Life)
Permalink (via An Amber-Colored Life: “Be the best plumber” is obviously the best one.)
Permalink

For men who believe that a woman is only as valuable as she is interesting to their dicks, exposing a woman for being imperfect or or somehow sloppy — think STARS WITHOUT MAKEUP! photospreads or accidental boob flashes — means that they’ve once again denigrated a woman in the way that most matters to her. It reiterates a damaging message, that women must see their looks as their most important category, since men do. And supporters of partisan ladies will feel compelled to defend women against these charges of ugliness, as if we’re defending their honor. See what’s happening here? Honor is connected to a female politician’s looks, and not her work or ideology or politics.

It’s not just men who go right for the fugular, either. You can tell a lot about what a person values in other people by what they insult, and women whose first line of attack is “Oh yeah? Well, you’re fat/ugly, so I win” are often the sort of women who value their looks above every other trait, women who believe that the highest function of a lady is a decorative one. But when we leap to Clinton’s — or any woman’s — defense, are we buying into the flawed notion that a woman’s aesthetic appearance is something worthy of defense? Are we granting it more legitimacy than it deserves?

…Hillary Clinton, for her part, is unruffled. She told CNN, “I feel so relieved to be at the stage I’m at in my life right now. Because you know if I want to wear my glasses I’m wearing my glasses. If I want to wear my hair back I’m pulling my hair back. You know at some point it’s just not something that deserves a lot of time and attention. And if others want to worry about it, I let them do the worrying for a change.”

Once again, we’d be well-served to emulate Hillary’s “give zero fucks” example.

The bullshit is coming from both sides of the political divide, and the fact that we’re still talking about the overemphasis on looks means that too many people still believe that they can pull the “you’re ugly” trump card when they don’t agree with a woman. You may not agree with a woman, but to criticize her appearance — as opposed to her ideas or actions — isn’t doing anyone any favors, least of all you. Insulting a woman’s looks when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand implies a lack of comprehension on your part, an inability to engage in high-level thinking. You may think she’s ugly, but everyone else thinks you’re an idiot.

Permalink monsterbeard:

karion:

This is why we have an internet, and why we can have nice things.
section9:

Thank you reddit.


Haha, this doesn’t fit perfectly, but well enough that I can’t help myself.

So, so great.
Permalink (via What If The Male Avengers Posed Like The Female One? on Twitpic)
Permalink
Permalink

“Friendship is rare / D’ya know what I’m sayin’ to you / Friendship is raaa-aaa-aaarrre…..

Today’s lesson:

When I -

1) Feel like you’re upset with me, and come to you to give you a chance to air out why…

2) And I’m right, and you do, and I offer a heartfelt apology…

3) And you don’t accept it/respond to it/continue to shut me out as a friend…

Then I refuse to feel badly about it any longer.

I learned a long time ago that it’s not about the people in your life who think you’re perfect…it’s the people in your life who love you despite your imperfections. That sounds cheesy - we should Pinterest that! - but it is very true. And it’s also this: Sometimes people just want to be mad. Hold on to their anger. And that’s okay, but I won’t let you hold me hostage through that. And the funniest thing is that that tends to make those people the most angry: The fact that others refuse to go through life continuing to feel bad for a mistake they already made every move to amend. If your anger is worth more than the length and width of friendship rope we hold between us, then you’re welcome to it. Sad that you feel that way.

But no longer sorry.

Permalink (via An Amber-Colored Life)
It’s amazing how one courageous step - putting yourself out there, going for something that feels big and scary - propels you to take another courageous step, and then another one.
Permalink

Mrs. Toczko’s letter, Franzen explained, was essentially about “how terrible it is to have your story taken away from you.” The death of Mrs. Toczko’s son was an enormous part of her life, and it had become “basically one column in a New Yorker piece kind of about—well, very much about someone else.” On stage in New York, Franzen took out the envelope that still held Mrs. Toczko’s letter, and said that even today he could not read it. He wanted to show it to the audience, though, “out of respect for Mrs. Toczko, but also out of inescapable shame of being a storyteller, of taking control of a story like that.”

By this point in Franzen’s story I was no longer thinking of Chris Toczko. I was thinking of David Foster Wallace. The essay Franzen had published two weeks earlier was about Wallace, who had committed suicide two and a half years before. And that essay, called “Farther Away,” was also about “taking control of a story”: In it, Franzen attempts to correct the “adulatory public narratives” of Wallace and his death.

When it comes to Wallace, Franzen is, in some respects, in Mrs. Toczko’s position. He was personally close to him, while most of us fans and readers who have written and spoken about Wallace since his death were not. (At the beginning of “Farther Away,” Wallace’s wife, Karen Green, gives Franzen some of Wallace’s ashes to scatter on the island he is headed to on vacation.) But he was also competitive with Wallace—their friendship, he acknowledges in the essay, was one “of compare and contrast and (in a brotherly way) compete.” (Another reason I was thinking about Wallace: Both “Farther Away” and the Chris Toczko story are about a rival who died.) And beyond simply refuting “the benignant and morally clairvoyant artist/saint” image that arose around Wallace after his death, Franzen insinuates fairly terrible things about his friend, without explaining those insinuations to his readers.

For instance: “I will pass over the question of diagnosis (it’s possible he was not simply depressive) and the question of how such a beautiful human being had come by such vividly intimate knowledge of the thoughts of hideous men.” Of course, Franzen hasn’t really passed over the question of diagnosis; he has explicitly raised it, while also implying that Wallace had to have been like the “hideous men” in his fiction (as though he were incapable of otherwise imagining such hideousness).

Elsewhere, Franzen says Wallace’s suicide was “calculated to inflict maximum pain on those he loved most.” More than once, Franzen suggests that Wallace had deliberately gone “the Kurt Cobain route” and “chosen the adulation of strangers over the love of the people closest to him.” He says that “infantile rage and displaced homicidal impulses [were] visible in certain particulars of his death.” What those “certain particulars” were, Franzen doesn’t say. And I don’t personally feel any deep need to know what they were. But if you are going to make, in print, what is essentially an accusation, you should, I think, provide some evidence for it. (To be honest, I wonder why no editor at the New Yorker insisted as much.) Otherwise, you are not only seizing control of the story, you’re keeping much of that story for yourself.

This is the other reason “Farther Away” feels like a betrayal of the ethics of storytelling as Franzen sketched them on that stage in New York. Defending himself from Mrs. Toczko’s letter, he says:

“I was just doing what a writer does, right? I was telling a story, trying to make sense of my life, and passing it along in hopes that it might resonate with other people, and, you know, there’s sort of an exchange of gifts going on here. And it’s my job to give gifts like that. And yet in that envelope was somebody’s painful report on the price of seizing control of the story.”

Perhaps Franzen intended “Farther Away” as a similar report. Perhaps he felt that “those who read [Wallace’s] Kenyon College commencement address in the Wall Street Journal and mourned the loss of a great and gentle soul” had unfairly seized the story of his friend. And because there were so many such people, he could not simply write a letter, as Mrs. Toczko had done, but instead had to write an essay for the New Yorker, one that was published the same week as The Pale King, Wallace’s last, unfinished novel. But reading that essay again, between the hard covers of Franzen’s own latest book, it does not feel like a gift.

Permalink (via An Amber-Colored Life: SUMMER OF HUMMERS is BACK!)
If you don’t know about it already, every week during the warmer seasons my friend Randy sends me a picture of the Henderson Independent, where a woman named Dolores writes a column about hummingbirds. In my mind, Dolores is a brassy old broad who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and wears a lot of bedazzled clothing…mainly because her name is Dolores. Randy and I read these headlines all last summer with glee, finally deciding at the turn of fall that either Dolores or her editor had to know that her headlines were filled with hilarious innuendo. But purposeful or no…Summer of Hummers, you guys. It’s all happening. And it’s “come” early this year.