this ain't livin'

A Night at Wakefield Manor | 31Mar06

On 12 January, 1936, I was invited to a most peculiar dinner party.

Our host didn’t show at all, because he was dead, and the invited guests were forced to sort the matter out among ourselves.

Roger Wakefield, our esteemed host, died in a most unfortunate way–drugged and left to drown in his private swimming pool, clad in his dressing gown and slippers. Most undignified. The police of course came out at once to deal with it, and after dispensing with the servants (imagine, the fool of a constable sent them home!), he entered the cocktail hour and informed us of the tragic facts of Mr. Wakefield’s demise.

Over dinner, discussion made it apparent that Mr. Wakefield had several arguments over the course of that Saturday afternoon, and that every one of us had a reason to kill him!

I, of course, was concerned that Mr. Wakefield had stumbled upon the truth of a murder I had been involved in over two years ago in the Yorkshire Dales, in which an unfortunate man was stabbed to death–it formed the basis of my bestselling book, The Knife Slices Coldly, but as I have stated before, I had nothing to do with the matter.

Mr. Bates, the departed’s illegitimate son, and a lawyer, had a few reasons of his own, not the least of which was his extensive gambling debt which would be absolved by inheritance of the estate. There was a great deal of fishy business going on with the will, and several guests overheard him arguing with his father. He was also embezzling money from his father, which came to light by way of the secretary, who found a peculiar cheque amongst Mr. Wakefield’s papers.

“Dr.” Mal Practiss, seen here serving the biscuits after dinner, murdered Mr. Wakefield’s late wife via an overdose of sleeping pills. Mr Wakefield suspected the good doctor of foul deeds, and the man was becoming nervous for the state of his license, not altogether surprising since I suspect he didn’t even have one.

Donald Brooks, left, with his loving wife Flo “Wing” Brooks, and Randy Sheets, a popular actress of the day. Mr Brooks was attempting to blackmail Mr. Wakefield, who displayed a natural male interest in the films of Miss Sheets. Mrs. Brooks turned out to be the illegitimate son of Mr. Wakefield’s late wife, by way of Old Woo, a Chinese gentleman. She was determined to avenge her mother’s death. Miss Sheets had starred in a lovely little film, Stiff Upper Lip, although she wanted to branch out into more mainstream and respectable films. Alas, Mr. Wakefield thought her charms better suited to, ah, blue movies, and was attempting to force her to remain in that genre. Frustrated artists get quite hot blooded, you know.

Of course, only one man could be the true murderer, and it turned out to be Sir Roger Wakefield, here being revealed as the imposter that he is. We never learned the man’s real identity, but we discovered that he took advantage of the real Sir Roger’s childhood kidnapping to insert himself into the Wakefield family. (He, of course, killed the real Sir Roger in order to ensure that he didn’t pop up at an awkward moment.) He was concerned that Mr. Wakefield was onto him, and so killed him and attempted to hide the will leaving the estate to Mr. Bates. A devious method of murder, really–quite athletic as a result of his mountain climbing, the man swung onto Mr Wakefield’s second floor balcony after drugging him via a glass of water, and used a board from a scaffold to catapult Mr Wakefield into the pool, where he drowned.

The entire affair was most lurid, and in my opinion several of the guests did not properly absolve themselves, including the elusive E.R.A., Mr Wakefield’s “secretary.” What are these days coming to, when respectable guests at a dinner party are forced to do the work of the police for them?

(Many thanks to our gracious host and coordinator, who made the evening most enjoyable despite my altogether stunned state and lack of sleep.)

[mystery dinner]

Developments | 31Mar06

Are interesting but not altogether unpleasant.

I can’t say that I disapprove, really, it’s just going to take me a while to digest.

Wondrous.

Other fish in the sea | 30Mar06

It seems like half the state is all aflutter over the proposed closure of the salmon season this year. There are a wide variety of groups agitating for different outcomes here, and most of them seem to be working against each other.

I think that a couple of things are going on here.

The first is the steadfast refusal to acknowledge that there are thousands of fish species in the ocean, and that a large number of them are edible, and tasty to boot. I understand that there is high consumer demand for salmon, though I can’t quite fathom it. In my opinion, it’s a rather dull fish. Yes, it’s novel that the flesh is pink, but the excitement ends right about there for me.

When I think back to transcendent oceanic dining experiences, salmon doesn’t figure in the list. I think about cod, tuna, sardines, mackerel, squid, barramundi, octopi…freshwater trout, scallops, limpets. Sure I’ve had some decent salmon. I’ve also have some really bad salmon. Farmed, salmon is notorious for being polluting and gross. Wild caught, you may be putting fish stocks in danger.

So we have salmon as a big industry, thanks to consumer ignorance.

One of the biggest lobbies against closure is the “sport fishing” industry. A friend of mine and I were discussing the term “sport fishing” earlier this week. Like “sport hunting,” I believe it to be a misnomer. It’s not sport, it’s wholesale slaughter. You in a truck with a rifle against a deer is not sport–likewise, you in a high powered boat with a bunch of lines is not sport. Sport is communion with the animal you kill, sport is meeting it face to face in its own environment. Sport is chasing deer on foot after your hounds, spearfishing in the ocean, or sitting on the bank of a stream on a drizzly afternoon with a rod and fly.

I don’t quite understand this obsession with vacations geared around killing things. It really sounds rather dull to me. Now, I enjoy a high powered weapon as much as the next girl, but I prefer shooting at targets, not perfectly good meat. As my friend pointed out, he’s not opposed to hunting perse, but hunting for glamour or for the fun of it is repulsive.

Sport fishing makes a lot of money here. The real fishing industry has essentially collapsed (although progress is being made, thanks to rigorous monitoring), but here are all these boats and someone has to do something with them. Sport fishermen claim that the closure of the salmon season would ruin them. Once again, I am forced to ask if they are aware that other fish species do exist. Or if they might want to pursue other economic paths, like offering tours of the coast from the water (something I’ve done by kayak and loved). I find this inflexibility regarding their “prey” to be foolish and short sighted.

What people seem to be overlooking here is that in theory the ban is supposed to be protecting the salmon and allowing their stocks to recover. Frustratingly for Californians, California salmon stocks are rising, and will be particularly high this year, thanks to respectful and careful stewardship. Unfortunately stocks in the Klamath river, which originates in Oregon, are falling. Because California and Oregon salmon mingle, the Department of Fisheries is arguing that there needs to be a total ban on salmon fishing in order to ensure that Klamath stocks aren’t further depleted.

Now, as Haddock recently pointed out, there are a lot of politics involved here, and the closure of the salmon season has some nuances which should be carefully considered–I recommend that you read his post for an analysis of some of the political undercurrents here. The important thing to take away from any analysis of the situation is that the Klamath river is also used for farming irrigation, and that in this case, the farmers won. Which is a sad thing to say, because, like Haddock, I don’t like the idea of pitting farmers and fishers against each other.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the ban. On the one hand, I sort of do want to see the season closed, in order to educate people about conservation and stewardship issues. I would love to see diners expanding their palates, “sport fishers” expanding their offerings, and all of us thinking more about where our food comes from. Haddock also points out that aquaculture is the future, so now is a really great time to start thinking about sustainable and healthy aquaculture.

On the other hand, I struggle. I am not a supporter of the tourism industry, despite the fact that many of my friends and neighbors make their money from tourism. I am especially not a fan of “sport fishing,” because I think it’s a vile practice. I don’t think that closure of the salmon season would cause a total collapse of the tourism industry, though I suspect that many fishermen would go bankrupt, and that is something that troubles me. I don’t give a rats ass for the yuppie scum that are infesting and destroying my formerly beautiful home–I do care, deeply, about people who are trying to make a living from the land and sea.

To wax cheesy for a moment, we do need to work together as a planet, and if the Klamath stocks are in danger, perhaps we owe a season’s closure to them. What we do off the coast of California does affect what happens in Oregon, and Mexico, whether we like it or not. I just wish there was a way we could work the situation so that people weren’t getting shafted–if, for example, salmon fishermen put out of work this summer could assist the government in monitoring California fish stocks.

Whether or not the closure goes into affect, I think the extensive news coverage and public debate over the issue may have raised awareness about fisheries issues, and that’s a good thing.

[salmon]

A few thoughts on gang rape | 29Mar06

I’m sure it won’t come as a surprise to my readers that I am opposed to gang rape. Indeed, I suspect that deep down inside, a fair number of Americans are opposed to rape in general, and gang rape in particular. Alas, given that one in four American women can expect to be raped in her lifetime, not enough Americans care about rape. (Rape statistics are extremely difficult to confirm–the one in four estimate is from the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation. Statistics on male rape are even more challenging to verify, and I have left them out of the discussion for the time being. Suffice it to say that men are raped.)

When I was teaching in the high schools, discussions of what, exactly, rape was would come up fairly frequently. I define rape in a fairly straightforward fashion: rape is sexual activity without consent, sex under duress, or sex with an individual who is unable to give consent due to drug or alcohol induced incapacity. Consent can be withdrawn at any time–in California, you can be prosecuted for rape whenever your partner says “stop, I don’t want to do this,” regardless as to your relationship status, any prior agreements, or state of undress at the time. Well meaning boyfriends ask me “but sometimes my girlfriend says no, and I think she means yes, you know, she’s teasing, what should I do?” And I would say “try stopping. If she says no to mean yes, she’ll wise up in a hurry to using proper language to express her needs. If she says no to mean no, her mission is accomplished.”

But I’m not here to run an advice column. I’m here to talk about the gang rape committed on Duke University property on March 14th.

What, you say. I haven’t heard of this? What is this gang rape of which you speak?

Well, it’s a sad and sordid tale, and not an unusual one.

Duke University, as you are probably aware, is awash with sports teams, including a lacrosse team. On 14 March, the lacrosse team decided to hold a party, a well respected course of activity on Tuesday nights for college students the world ’round. It was determined that in order to liven up the proceedings, two exotic dancers should be hired. The women were duly secured, and here the first lie was told: the dancers were informed that they were dancing at a private bachelor party for five. The women did not bring security or protection along with them, either because it’s not provided by their agency or because they didn’t feel it was necessary. One of the women is a mother of two children, using dancing to pay her way through school.

When the dancers arrived, they were surrounded by forty men. All save one of the men were white. The dancers were black. They began their routine, and according to the accuser were met almost immediately with racial slurs. The women decided to leave, feeling that the environment was unsafe. The men followed the women out, demanding their money back and shouting out more racial slurs. One of the men told the women to “thank your grandfather for the cotton shirt on my back.” True class. A neighbor witnessed the two outside the home, and said that one of them went back inside to get something.

When she did, she was accosted: brutally raped and sodomized in the bathroom by at least three men. The formal charges include assault by strangulation, robbery, sodomy, rape, and kidnapping. A search of the house revealed the woman’s fingernails, makeup bag, and cellphone, all things women commonly leave behind at parties. (Fingernails, according to Miss Manners, are all the rage as a thank you present to your host.)

There are so many things wrong with this story that I hardly know where to begin with my irritation.

1. The neighbor. In retrospect, he says he should have called the police, who were apparently routinely called to that neighborhood. Indeed, there have been so many complaints about the area that the University bought fifteen properties, including the house where the rape was committed, with the intent to sell them to long-term landlords who would also live in the homes, instead of renting them out to college students. The neighbor expressed guilt in an interview over not calling the police to the house when the party got rowdy: I’m sure the victim feels so very terrible for the neighbor.

2. The racially charged nature of the case. As several critics have pointed out, if this happened at a primarily black university and members of a black team raped a white stripper, it would be national news. As it is, the story has been slow to break, although thanks to the nature of the internet it is starting to make the news–the Chronicle finally had an article on it this morning.

3. The University’s lack of proper response. Only after public outcry was the team shut down until further notice, for example. Universities with sports teams are notorious for not controlling them properly and for turning a blind eye to inappropriate behaviour. This case is merely one example for a need to crack down on University sports teams–athletes are not Gods, and they should not be permitted to ride roughshod. I assure you that had the rape been perpetrated by the Chess Club, all the players would now be in custody, and the club would be shut down.

4. There are a lot of dynamics of inequality going on in this case: her sex, her race, her economic class. It is a terrible world that we live in when a group of upper class white men think it permissible to assault a lower class working mother, when women are cheapened by the nature of their social status.

I am glad to see mounting protests at Duke by the student body, as well there should be. I hope this brings about a moratorium on the free hand sports teams are given. Indeed, given my opposition to the way in which University athletics are handled, I hope it brings about a moratorium on University teams in general. I don’t think that violent sports have a place in the academic environment, though I am supportive of physical activity by university students. I hope this brings about mandatory education at the University about these issues. I hope that the entire team is expelled, for they all acted in collusion. She was raped not only by the three men who physically raped her, but by the two men who kidnapped her, and by the thirty five men who did nothing while all this was going on, and who refuse to name their teammates.

I am very proud of the unnamed woman for reporting the crime. I am proud of her for escaping and calling the police, for going to the hospital and submitting to a sexual assault exam, and for being strong. I hope that her friends and family are with her, and that she is well cared for, and I hope she doesn’t lose her resolve in the face what I imagine will be considerable pressure from the University.

I firmly believe that if the University kept a better eye on the sports teams, this incident would not have occurred. I suspect the University knows this, because they have kept mum on the issue–only through concerted public effort was the team suspended from play.

Were I to comment on every reported rape in the United States, this site would be updated a whole lot more. Hell, I’d probably have to move servers to store all the information. But this rape deserves special attention, and should be singled out, because of its multifold and horrific nature. All rape should be spoken out against, but this rape is one which speaks to a lot of problems with our society and University culture. You should care.

The evidence will out: it is our responsibility as a public to ensure that justice is served.

[rape]
[Duke University]

A few thoughts on identification | 28Mar06

I’ve gotten in the habit lately of asking people for their id when they present me with an unsigned credit card.

Did you know that according to Visa, unsigned cards or cards that say “see id” are invalid? Technically, I am supposed to ask the customer to present another form of id and sign the card in my presence.

“If the cardholder refuses to sign the card, do not accept the card.”

I tried to follow Visa party line all of twice, and the first time the gentleman (one of my favourite clients, I might add) said:

“Oh, gosh, I just got this card and I forgot to sign it. Thanks for reminding me.”

And the second time, the prissy stuck up snooty bitch treated me to a 15 minute tirade on why the card was “more secure” unsigned, and how she “saw in a tv special” that you should never sign your cards, and so on. It was intense. So I modified my response to the Visa policies–I accept any signed card, and I ask for identification otherwise. A surprising number of people thank me for asking for id. Some of them look angry. But all of them fork it over.

I should point out that it’s not just Visa who has this policy. Every major issuer of credit cards (Mastercard, American Express, Discover, Diner’s Club, etc) has the same policy: an unsigned card should be considered invalid. It’s really frustrating to me that there’s so much misinformation about credit card security out there, because it makes adhering to credit merchant policies extremely difficult. Technically, I can get in trouble for accepting an unsigned card, and the business I work for could have their merchant services revoked, making us unable to accept credit cards. Why should I take that risk because many credit card users are more willing to take the word of late night television than their card agreements for the proper way to handle their credit card?

Credit card executives have said in numerous forums that unsigned cards are invalid. Yet still the masses believe misinformation. Life can be frustrating sometimes.

I recently waited on a gentleman from Spain, who told me that in Europe you get asked for your identification every time you use a credit card, period. (I noted that his card was signed.) This seems like a much more sensible policy, really. Sign your card, and present clerks with the card and your identification for them to compare.

The issue of asking for id and universal id is a difficult one, and not something I’m going to discuss today. Let it be said for the record however that I am often out of the house without id because I strongly object to the idea that I should be identifiable at all times. I would rather not enter a “papers please” era. However, the issue of id and customer service is clear cut to me–in certain businesses, no id=no service. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. It’s for your protection. When I am asked for my id in bars, restaurants, or merchants, I provide it. And you can choose not to patronize those businesses because of their id policy, whereas it’s much more difficult to avoid the outside world altogether.

For clerks at the register, some ways to avoid credit card fraud:

Ask for a valid form of identification with a picture, preferably government issued. Compare the name on the card with the name on the id. When they sign the charge slip, compare the signature on the card, id, and slip to make sure they match.

Try to avoid manually processing cards. If you have a funky swiper (like we do), this might be difficult, and if you do manually process a card, make sure all the security/antiforgery features are intact.

Always ask to see the credit card physically, if possible. For phone sales, this is obviously impossible, but if you are a business which holds reservations with credit cards, ask for the card when clients check in. Credit card companies prefer you to physically imprint the card.

If the customer is rushing you, buying a lot of merchandise without really looking at it, or otherwise behaving oddly, it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious.

If, when you run the customer’s card, it comes up “declined,” politely ask for another card. Cards can be declined for a wide variety of reasons. If a message pops up asking you to call for authorization, politely inform the customer that you need to “call (credit card company) for your security” and if possible have another member of staff relieve you so that you may go to the back to make the call. Make sure you have the authorization numbers for the cards you accept posted somewhere handy–we have them taped to our register. (I’ve made authorization calls with customers glaring at me and tapping their fingers on the counter…it’s not very enjoyable.) For the codes “pick up,” “no match,” or “hold card,” you are supposed to “retain the card if you can do so peacefully.” Good luck with that.

For consumers:

Always sign your credit cards, and present them with identification.

If you have multiple credit cards, a not uncommon occurrence in this age of usury, try not to carry more than two at once.

Monitor your credit card statements carefully–most companies now provide online real time updates, and all have phone services. If you see a suspicious transaction, report it immediately. All credit card companies have fraud avoidance and grievance handling systems in place–you will not be held responsible for unauthorized transactions made on your card, although it may take over a month to have them removed.

Be aware that some businesses, such as restaurants and hotels, often “preauthorize” your card for a larger sum than that of charges. This particularly applies in restaurants, where it is assumed that you will be tipping on the card. Usually the preauthorization vanishes overnight–if it doesn’t, call the business and politely confirm the amount of charges. (I noticed the other day that a local restaurant had actually pre-authorized me for less than the amount of sale, but the next day I noted the charge was correct.) However, for those of us running close to the credit limit, it’s a good idea to keep your eye on preauthorizations, because it’s a great way to get your card declined.

Of course, the best way to avoid credit card fraud is to not have any at all.

And hey–please be respectful of the clerks and service people who are trying to protect your security and their businesses. If you are asked for id, be courteous: remember, you can refuse to provide me with your identification under the law…and I can also refuse to provide you with service.

[credit card security]
[asking for id]

War without honor? | 27Mar06

The Chronicle is publishing a series this week they’re calling War Without End. It appears to be the brain child of Joan Ryan, who often serves as the lone conservative voice on their op-ed page. Luckily she’s not as annoying as Mark Morford, but sometimes it’s a close call. I would say I agree with Ryan some of the time, and other times I violently disagree with her. She’s a little too rah rah Bush administration for my tastes. Sometimes her language betrays her in the articles–words like “sacrifice” crop up a trifle too often. She has her beliefs and she defends them, though, often very articulately and rationally, and I must give her points for that.

Ostensibly, the series is about two injured Iraq veterans, Sgt. Michael Buyas and Sgt. Brent Bretz. Sgt. Buyas lost both his legs in a roadside bombing, and the two articles thus far are a discussion of his day to day struggles as a double amputee.

Make no mistake, being a double amputee is serious business. With advances in prosthetics, Sgt. Buyas may be able to walk and even run normally with intensive physical therapy. But there are a lot of problems associated with being a double amputee, not least of which is the loss of both legs. Amputees also experience painful out of control bone growth known as heterotopic ossification (HO). Commonly associated with head injuries, HO happens when your body sends mixed messages–and “cauliflower like” growths of bone start appearing at amputation sites. If operated on, it often gets worse, so doctors are forced to wait until the HO is done growing and then operate, all the while hoping that it hasn’t caused permanent damage. Amputees also content with painful exposed nerve bundles and phantom limb syndrome. In addition, there are the psychological costs of amputation, which are often particularly difficult for soldiers.

It’s sort of hard to look a man who lost both legs in the war in the face and say “sorry dude, your legs were wasted.”

I’m not quite sure what Ryan’s point with the series is. The title is an interesting choice, to begin with. Is she suggesting that the war has dragged on too long? That as long as veterans of the war are alive, it will never truly be over? Or is it a catchphrase the Chronicle’s editors chose?

At face value, the story is what it is–a description of what it’s like to come back from the war injured, and the difficulties disabled veterans face. But there’s more than that going on in these articles, I can sense it. She uses a lot of interesting language, and some of her selective quotes are priceless, like the one from Sgt. Buyas in the first article: “Freedom isn’t free.” My goodness, that’s not a loaded statement at all, especially coming from a wounded veteran. Soldiers are “damaged” and they are “tormented” by physical therapy. It almost sounds as though there’s an epic battle of good vrs. evil being fought at the Walter Reed Medical Center.

Embedded reporting from the military hospital. I imagine it must have been an intense experience for Sgt. Buyas to be followed around by reporters for months while they documented his recovery. I wonder what his thoughts were. It’s also interesting to me that Sgt. Buyas is from Washington–I know California has picturesquely injured soldiers as well, and I’m curious to know why Ryan didn’t follow any of them. Maybe because they were Mexican-Americans, and not as wholesome as a white boy from Washington?

Look. I’m not belittling the state of the thousands of men and women who have been injured in this war, and who are currently in Iraq fighting it. On the contrary, to use Ryan’s language, I think that these people made extreme sacrifices, and they should be respected, whether or not we agree with the cause they fought for. At this point, a lot of them don’t believe in the cause they are fighting for…or at least they’re not sure Iraq is the place to be fighting for that cause.

I think that the government and the VA have a long history of shafting injured veterans, even those who are permanently disabled and will probably never work again. That angers me. It angers me that the military promises to take care of these men and women and that when the shit hits the fan the soldier loses.

But I don’t think that’s what Ryan is going to talk about. I think she’s shoving the facts of their lives in our faces (including a vulnerable shot of Sgt. Buyas in the shower) in order to force us to confront the realities of the war. Now, maybe she wants us to confront the realities and come away saying “yeah, the war is awesome, it really sucks that all those people are getting fucked up, but hey, it’s for freedom.” Personally, I’m reading the series and getting angry. Angry about wasted lives and broken promises–perhaps this is her intent. Only time and the conclusion of the series will tell.

Personally, I think that seeing disable Iraq veterans would have a galvanizing effect on the populace. We don’t have ticker tape parades anymore, and I personally think that’s a shame. It’s unfortunate that we can hide from those injured in the war, with the joyful collusion of the Department of Defense. I’m sure that in urban areas or cities heavily settled by military families, soldiers with extreme injuries are a more common sight, but out here in the boonies you don’t encounter them much. Perhaps if we faced the people who are losing limbs and eyes and minds in pursuit of the Iraq war, we might be able to do more than write about it in protest. Perhaps if those injured were your family members, you might feel a more personal investment in trying to put a stop to the war. Perhaps if so much of the left wasn’t so ardently anti-military, these men and women would feel more comfortable out in society, knowing that people respect them (although they might have different feelings about their former employers).

This is the sort of small town where active duty military and members of the Coast Guard serving here get discounts at local businesses. I think that’s a great goodness, a small way of thanking people for their civil service. But maybe we need to thank them in more constructive ways too, like lobbying for better health care throughout life. Like making sure they don’t get sent to sand filled shit holes to fight pointless wars. Like caring. Have you hugged a veteran today?

[disabled veterans]
[Iraq war]

Also, splutters of incoherent rage | 26Mar06

The brilliant editorial staff over at AskMen have some awesome relationship tips for you, boys, so you’d better hop on over there. This hardhitting article has “six ways to tell your girl to lose some weight.”

Now, I have tried to stay out of the now-infamous “false advertising” debate, but with this article I must draw the line. It is so extraordinarily infuriating that I cannot remain silent. I had to draw myself out of my normally phlegmatic Sunday afternoon state in order to say this:

Fuck you, AskMen.

No, seriously.

First let’s start with the premise that it’s your responsibility to tell your girlfriend to lose weight as though it’s some sort of moral obligation. Clearly, you wouldn’t want to be seen dating a fat girl, so as those pounds creep up, you’ve got to take decisive action…or dump her. And you wouldn’t want to dump her, now would you? This premise also assumes that it’s totally socially acceptable and ok to tell your partner to lose weight, albeit in oh so clever and devious ways. As a self respecting man, you’ve got to take a stance somewhere, right?

These “tips” are degrading and offensive. Any self-respecting woman could not possibly be dating the sort of man who would take these seriously. Any man worth his salt wouldn’t be caught dead engaging in these sorts of petty tricks.

I really enjoy number five, when the boyfriend is directed to buy a garment which will be too small for his girlfriend, presumably to humiliate her into losing weight. It dovetails nicely with number one, where you are supposed to tell your girlfriend you “don’t like the way an outfit looks on her anymore.”

Maybe you’d prefer to prod her into a state of jealousy (hopefully you aren’t poly!) by telling her you have a “new female trainer” at the gym (number four), or that one of her friends is prettier than her. Or, in the case of number three, that one of her friends who has recently gained some weight sure looks like shit. Nice one there…use your criticism of another woman’s body to criticize your partner’s body. Now that’s class.

Hell, you can also follow number two, discussing how fat you are all the time, in the hopes of turning her mind to fat. After all, according to AskMen, us ladies are always bemoaning the state of our weight to each other, and if you join the club it will only heighten our awareness of that extra beignet we had last week.

Number six is the only tip that’s even vaguely acceptable, in my mind. Suggesting that both of you could benefit from a fitter, healthier lifestyle is not unreasonable. Indeed, you might even find common ground in hiking or biking together and cooking good meals.

But ultimately, you should be asking yourself if your girlfriend’s weight is really such a pressing issue. Surely you began dating her for reasons other than her anorexic, sized zero jeans. Maybe it was her laugh, her intelligence, her wit at a dinner party, her shared interest in activities with you. And if you put on some extra weight, how likely is your girlfriend to mention it? Far less, because she has more important things to worry about.

Maybe there’s a reason that she’s gaining weight, such as stress or a health problem. I assure you, if she’s like most American women, she’s fully aware of every extra pound…and doesn’t need you to remind her.

[fat]
[feminism]

By popular request…sweet potato gnocci | 26Mar06

I’ve noticed a lot of searches recently for “sweet potato gnocci,” which naturally bring the reader to my post about the divine sweet potato gnocci I had at the Bistro in January.

I imagine, however, that what you are looking for is a recipe, so here’s my personal gnocci recipe. (Perhaps Nicholas will be kind enough to oblige his fans with his own recipe, which I’m sure is different.) This is a loose recipe, and can be easily shrunk or expanded depending upon the number of diners. Offhand I’d say this serves about three of me.

Photographs are not available because I ate them before remembering that I meant to take an illustrative portrait. Here’s a picture of banana slugs having sex instead.

Preheat oven to 350 degrees.

Wash and pierce three respectably sized sweet potatoes. Roast them in the oven until they are done. When they are cool enough to touch, scoop out the contents into a large bowl–they will yield about two cups of sweet potato innards. (More is fine.)

Add two cups of flour (you want to match the amount of sweet potato with flour, so measure the sweet potato goo for the correct flour measurement).

Add one half teaspoon salt and 1/4 teaspoon nutmeg.

Knead this mixture together into a dough. Break the dough into chunks and roll them out into slender logs–cut the logs at 1/2 inch intervals, creating gnocci nuggets. You may poke them with a fork for a ridged character if you desire (helpful for retaining many sauces.)

Bring a pot of water to the boil–throw in your gnocci, and cook approximately three minutes, or until tender.

Eat. For sauce you are on your own (olive oil, salt, and pepper is divine…but so is a gorgonzola cream sauce).

Repeat as needed.

[food]
[sweet potato gnocci]

Sexism in massage | 26Mar06

I recently read a great article in Massage & Bodywork talking about the gender gap in massage. According to Thomas Claire, the author, approximately 70% of massage clients are female–and over 80% of massage therapists are female. It’s a bit difficult to pin down statistics, because there is no national registry of massage therapists. Claire surveyed several professional organizations of massage therapists for his figures.

For the massage and spa industry, male clientele is an untapped fount. More and more spas are designing treatments for men, and even designating men-only areas in their facilities. With the era of the metrosexual at hand, more men are interested in massage, scrubs, wraps, and other assorted spa treatments. For those intending to make money off them, this is a good thing.

But I’m interested in the gender gap for therapists. Massage is an overwhelmingly female dominated profession, emphasizing our “naturally healing” nature. A large number of therapists are feminists as well, and it’s rather ironic that they participate in an industry which promotes very sexist values. The woman-as-healer image is used by a lot of spas and massage institutes, to the detriment of therapists of both sexes.

Male therapists are a small group, brave adventurers in a female-dominated frontier. Not only do they have to deal with sexist pressure from within their industry, but they also have to deal with sexism from their clients. For some reason, massage clients usually prefer female therapists. This preference is often stated, loudly, at the time of booking–”I don’t want no man working on me!”

I feel for male therapists, and I’m getting to a point of anger over this. I’m tired of women saying in whispy voices “oh, I’d really feel more comfortable with a woman, if one is available…” and I’m tired of men saying “I don’t want a man working on my wife.” Client files are littered with “prefers female therapist,” and I have yet to work with someone who prefers a male therapist–only people who will “settle for a man if a woman isn’t available.” It saddens me to see female therapists all booked up on busy day, and male therapists without a single appointment.

So what’s the deal here?

I think there are a couple of things going on. The first is the image of women being more gentle, sensitive, and nurturing than men. Under this stereotype, women would be preferred as massage therapists. Because the spa industry is rife with images of loving female hands, female technicians administering facials, female therapists gently wrapping their clients, the average client is accustomed to the idea of a woman therapist. I rarely see men in promotional imagery for spas, unless they are receiving male-oriented treatments…from a female therapist.

With men, it seems to be a security issue. I was recently talking with a gentlemen from Spain, and he said:

“Here in America I think it is fear. Men are afraid of being touched by other men, because then they will be called homosexual. In Spain, we don’t care. We know who we are.”

The second thing is that for the uneducated, massage is tinged with sexuality. Especially in the United States, anytime there are naked people involved there must be sex. It’s really rather frustrating for those working in the massage industry, because most therapists have high ethical standards, and most certifications require ethics training. The men and women who work in the spa industry have high personal standards–to quote a male therapist I recently discussed this with:

“What really frustrates me is that people think I’m going to see them naked. At my school, we spent a lot of time on draping–I really have a unique draping technique. I never see anything inappropriate on my clients, although I have done doubles with therapists in other spas who are pretty sloppy…you can see all kinds of stuff.”

For massage therapists, your naked body is a healing challenge. The therapist wants to get to know your body, wants you to leave relaxed and released. The therapist is not interested in seeing your breasts or genitals, and engages in steps to prevent this–draping. Most therapists have partners at home, and if they were pursuing extracurricular relations, they probably wouldn’t be picking you. Not only would they be likely to lose their job, but they would strike a blow at the reputation of massage therapists as a whole. It’s unfortunate that the sex industry has been forced to use “massage” as a front, because of the Byzantine legal system. Trust me, professional spas and massage parlors offering “other services” can be easily differentiated, if that’s your concern. Of course, massage parlors usually have an all female staff, if that’s your issue.

I think there’s also an aspect of fear of the unknown, and new clients tend to prefer female therapists because they think it will be “safer.” Women, of course, are far less likely to prey on innocent massage victims! Women will stop if you ask them to! Women will respect your needs as a client, instead of riding roughshod over them like the big bad male therapist. And nothing turns a man gay like a massage from a dude. Works every time.

Now, I’ll admit, I’m a dirty hippie, so I don’t give a fig for my therapist’s sex. What I care about is the quality of their work, and whether they are a good fit for me. I’ve worked with male and female therapists and never have I felt anyone overstepping professional boundaries. Indeed, I have what a friend calls the “massage school mentality,” which means that if there’s a table and a willing therapist, my pants are off. (And so is my shirt.) Sexism is a pitiful reason to miss out on great massage, especially since many male therapists have gotten extensive training in a wide variety of modalities in an attempt to counter the sexism of their trade. Men almost always do deep tissue, for example. But many also have training in shiatsu, trigger point, polarity work, lomi lomi, accupressure, lymphatic…and are happy to incorporate their training into work with you. Working with men will probably broaden your massage horizons.

It’s a great pity that male therapists are missing out on clients by nature of their sex, and it’s a greater pity that clients are missing out on a great session by nature of their sexism. The male therapist above has a clientele of loyal women who love his work and won’t book with anybody else–and several of them only booked with him the first time because there was no woman available.

If you are considered about the ethical boundaries of your therapist, you should probably be picking a different spa, because all spas hold their therapists to the same level of professional standards. Get reviews. Ask around until you find a spa you would be comfortable in. And let the staff book you with the therapist they think will be your best match. You might find yourself encountering the perfect therapist for your needs–surely you can look beyond the matter of their sex, because it doesn’t affect their job performance.

[massage]
[sexism]

Last call… | 26Mar06

If you’re planning on submitting to the second ever Big Fat Carnival, a good time to do that is this week, as the deadline is midnight Pacific time on Sunday, 2 April 2006! If you miss this carnival, you’re going to have to wait a whole two months for the next one, and that doesn’t sound like any fun.

Only email submissions are being accepted at this time! You may email me, including “Big Fat Carnival submission” or something similar in the subject line (meloukhia at gmail dot com).

The Big Fat Carnival is a carnival for collecting some of the best blog posts regarding fat pride; fat acceptance; critiques of anti-fat bigotry, attitudes and research; celebration of images of fat people; practical difficulties of being fat; fat love (queer and otherwise); feminist views of fat and fat acceptance; the health at every size movement (HAES); and whatever else each edition’s editor feels fits into the theme.

(But please note, The Big Fat Carnival is not a place to advocate weight-loss diets, weight loss surgery (WLS), or feederism.)

This carnival will be published on Tuesday, 4 April, and I look forward to including your work in it!

[Big Fat Carnival]