The Carbon Problem

So, I've gotten a little obsessed with carbon recently. Those of you who speak with me on a regular basis may have noticed, but don't worry. I'm not going to go on a rant here about climate change. If you don't live under a rock, you already know, and you know that our time may already be up. We need to start dealing with this ten years ago, and it's absolutely out of the question to just wait for "someone" to do "something."
The Green New Deal has been getting a lot of press lately, and I'm really pleased about that. But the truth is the wheels of government grind slowly, and even if it passes (in two years, assuming we actually have a president who will sign it by then) a whole lot of precious water will have passed under the bridge.

We can't wait on Washington.
There are two major things we have to do in order to survive. The first is lower our carbon footprint, and the second is sequester the current carbon in the air. Neither of these things will be enough on their own. We need to do both, we need to do them in tandem, and we need to stop arguing over which is more important.
That's a stupid fight.
So, since I've gotten a little obsessed with this, I've been doing research. And I've decided to share my research with all of you. If you think it's worthwhile, share it with other people. Share it as many places as you can, because the more people we get working on this the better.

Lowering Our Carbon Footprint
So, when we talk about lowering our carbon footprint, we're really talking about a multi-fronted fight. There's our personal carbon footprint, and then there's the social carbon footprint, and we need to take responsibility for both. It's not fair, but it's also not f'ing optional.

If you already know how to lower your personal carbon footprint, feel free to skip this next section and go straight to social footprint.

Personal Footprint
Your control over your personal carbon footprint is basically directly proportional to your income. If you're wealthy then you can put solar panels on your house. You can drive an electric car that you charge off that solar energy. You can buy local, organic produce and local, ethically-raised meats. You can buy organic, sustainable food-wraps and underwear and--hell, I don't know. Everything.
The problem is that "organic, sustainable, local, ethical" etc. have all become buzzwords for the new "socially-conscious" middle class. Slap one of those words on a product and it immediately costs twice as much. We're letting the market make it harder to live more sustainable lives, and if I start talking about how angry that makes me we're going to REALLY get derailed here. So, instead, let's focus on what we're working with, and ignore my anger over capitalism for a second.
If you have the money, make the changes.
Period. Don't wait for a more efficient option, or a better chance, or the next gen. Just do it. The money in your bank is not worth as much as the air you breath. Get over it.

Insulate your home properly. A lot of our energy goes towards heating and cooling, and a well insulated home reduces that significantly.
Put solar on your house. Hell, put solar on a friend's house, if you can afford it, and then get them to pay you for electricity. It won't cost them anything more than they're already paying, and that's one more house on clean energy.

Drive a low carbon car. If you've got solar, that means an electric car that you charge from your own grid. If you don't, that probably means a hybrid or fuel efficient car, but do your research. No trucks or SUV's unless you actually have a functional purpose for such a thing. If you go camping once a year, get a tow-rig instead of driving a monster year-round.
Shop the farmer's market if you can. If you can't, you can still buy local. I live in MA and apples are cheap as dirt here. In Florida? Eat a lot of citrus. I know we love produce variety but we love going outside and not being roasted in an earth-sized oven more, right?
Limit your meat consumption. This one is hard for me, because my diet is basically nothing but meat and produce, but truthfully the meat industry is horrible for the environment. Got hunter friends? Buy from them. If not, try to buy meat that has been raised in a sustainable way. Barring that option, try to keep your meat to the lower impact species. And, of course, you can always go vegetarian, and eliminate this issue all together.
Go reusable. Oddly enough, you don't have to buy those crazy hippie products in order to do this. Many types of food come in reusable containers. Mayo comes in a quart jar, y'all. Yogurt comes in a handy plastic tupperware. Is it the prettiest form of food storage? Nope. But it gets the job done. Just make sure you have a sharpie to label things.
Also, if you want the crazy hippie stuff, sometimes YouTube is your best friend. I really want some of that beeswax wrapping paper, and I found this:

You can find instructionals for reusable shopping bags, environmentally friendly home-made cleaners, diy cloth pads--pretty much any simple product, you can make yourself. The key here is to try to make it out of stuff you already own. Don't go buy jersey for a reusable thing, use an old t-shirt instead. Oh, and that brings us to...
Don't buy clothes.
Okay, that's not really realistic, especially if you have kids that insist on growing (if you personally find some of the non-growing type of children let me know.) But you don't have to buy new clothing. The fashion industry is a huge source of pollution. Huuuuuuuuge. You don't like the idea of wearing something someone else has worn?

Get. Over. It.

My three exceptions are underwear, socks, and swimsuits, not because of hygiene but because those things are already worn out by the time they make it to thrift stores. Aside from that, though, I buy probably 95% of my clothing used. Go get friendly with your local Goodwill.
Last but not least, reduce your trash. Reuse things, recycle things, and compost what you can. Maybe it's not always easy, but trust me... it's totally worth it.

Social Footprint

Okay, our "social footprint" is what I call the footprint created by the industries and lifestyles we allow to go on around us, even if we aren't directly accessing them.

Can we directly impact that? Yes and no. On the one hand, nothing we personally do will lower that social footprint too much. But, on the other hand, we can bribe people to lower their footprint, and that really does help.
How it Works:
There are websites that will sell you carbon offsets. They do that by partnering with large projects that reduce carbon output in big ways. Critics call this a "license to pollute" but I call it "have your cake and eat it, too" carbon management. See, for those of us with some (not a lot, but some) money to spend on causes we deem worthwhile, this is a way we can help offset the carbon footprint of society as a whole. Reduce your own footprint, and then pay to reduce someone else's.
No, of course it's not fair. Remember? I said that at the top. It's not fair, but it's fucking necessary.
Anyway, passing laws is going to be our long term effective strategy against our social footprint, but, in the meantime...
THROW MONEY AT THE PROBLEM!!!

via GIPHY
And there are some reputable websites out there that will allow you to do just that.
TerraPass allows you to calculate your annual carbon footprint and pay to offset it. Then they take your money and apply it to projects that reduce carbon output in other places. Their projects are annually vetted and reviewed, and all listed on their website.
Carbonfund does essentially the same thing, but they also work in reforestation, as opposed to simply clean energy projects. I'll be talking more about reforestation down in the sequestration section, for now I'm just notifying you of the difference.
Cool Effect is a site that allows you to donate directly to a project with a price per tonne quote ($3.30 to preserve rubber trees, or $5.77 for biogas production), or just donate a flat amount and let the money be distributed as needed.
I'll be honest, I wanted to start a website just like this, but since they already exist, instead I'm planning to just try and get everyone I know to spread the word. Until I went searching I had no idea!
This is only useful if you go above and beyond your own footprint, though. So, either donate until your eyes bleed, or reduce your impact and only donate 'til your eyes itch. Either way, if you have money to spare, you should be considering throwing some of it this way. And by "considering" I mean "wtf are you waiting for, go do it NOW."

Sequestration
Okee dokee. For me, sequestration is the riveting part of this process, because sequestration is some crazy mad scientist stuff. We have taken an absurd amount of carbon and released it into the environment. Now we gotta pull it out, and that's not a small task. So, how do we do it?
There's no "one perfect way", and for many folks that's a stumbling block. People are waiting for the perfect, and while we wait precious time fritters away. Now, make no mistake, some objections to suggested forms of sequestration have merit. When a scientist tells you that a solution may damage the ecosystem more than it helps, it's important to listen. But any sequestration method where the main objection is "sure, that's great, but it won't be enough" is a method that, combined with many, many others, can be a part of the overall solution.

Natural Sequestration

Natural sequestration is just how I'm referring to anything that captures carbon in the normal ecological process. I'm going to be going into this, but it's important to understand that natural sequestration is inherently a slower process. On the other hand, it's cheap, and long term, and if we're hoping to get to a point where our ecosystem returns to a sustainable balance then natural sequestration will necessarily be a part of that. So, here we go...

Reforestation and Afforestation
Trees. You knew we were going to talk about trees, right? Trees are widely regarded as the best carbon sinks on land, and not only that, they're pretty, to boot. Replanting forests that have been damaged or depleted (reforestation) and planting brand new forests in areas where there were none (afforestation) are popular projects. When investing in trees, though, there are some things to keep in mind.
While they need to be part of the long term projections, trees take a while to mature, which means their full carbon filtering potential isn't a short term help. That's critical while we're teetering on the edge. Furthermore, slapdash forestry is a bad idea. Forest floors can actually produce a great deal of carbon, if they're not planned and managed carefully. Doing research on reforestation is a deep dark well, but let me shine a pinpoint of light on it like this: Where you plant matters, what you plant matters, and making provisions to protect your new forests matters a LOT.

I'm not saying to not plant a tree in your yard. I'm saying, if you really want to look to trees as a solution, donate to a forestry project, preferably one working in the tropics.

Carbon Farming
This is a method of farming which is not planned for maximum produce yeilds, but rather to trap carbon in the soil. I don't know too much about it, mainly because details are hard to find for free on the internet (if anyone's got $50 and wants to buy me a copy of The Carbon Farming Solution I'm happy to read it) but I have to admit, the basics seem pretty straightforward. Plant a carbon greedy crop, once it's mature till it under, and then plant a long root crop on top to keep the carbon in the soil. Allow grazers to eat the grass or crops, wash, rinse, repeat.

Given how much time and focus was put into ethanol as a way to a) help make renewable fuel and b) keep corn farmers afloat, I can't help but think this might be a more useful way to handle that farm land. I'm happy to pay subsidies for farmers that choose to farm carbon instead of crops we don't need.

OTHER vegetation
This one is my favorite, and the one I'm most excited about. Turns out there are a lot of great carbon sinks that grow, and not all of them are trees.
I'm super enthusiastic about moss. If you live in a wet part of the world, moss is an amazing carbon sink, and it also filters particulates out of the air. If you want, you can even grow your own moss garden (again, please, only in a wet part of the world.) . Moss is certainly a more environmentally friendly option than a manicured lawn, and it's fun to walk on. Sproing, sproing, sproing...

Anyway, aside from happening to live in a damp environment, and growing your own mossy backyard, restoring wetlands is a great project to invest in. The catch? I can't find any national programs doing it. The EPA has a bunch of information on it, but it's not really happening on a global scale, not that I can find, anyway. And wetlands are HUGE carbon reservoirs. So I guess, instead of a carbon offset NGO, I need to look at wetland restoration instead.
Grasslands are also excellent for carbon sequestration. I'm not talking about your lawn, here (particularly not if you mow it every week, which is not only insanity it's also bad for the planet). I'm talking about the hardy, amber waving fields of sturdy grass that grow wild in certain parts of the world. This includes things from buffalo grass to bamboo, and there are native grasslands in six of the world's seven continents.

Finally we have costal vegetation, and while I don't have the same fondness for it that I do for moss, I cannot deny that coastal vegetation kind of sounds like the promised land in the effort to reduce atmospheric carbon. Costal ecosystems are incredibly carbon rich, and, unlike terrestrial ecosystems, when the plants die they get carried to the deep recesses of the ocean, instead of decomposing in the atmosphere where their stored carbon is released. Mangroves, salt marshes, and sea grass are not only effective ways to sequester carbon, they also help with the growing effects of climate change, since they help fight erosion and maintain the local fisheries.

Chemical and Mechanical Sequestration
Chemical and mechanical sequestration are likely to end up being the magic bullet in terms of short term solutions. Ideally we won't spend the rest of the earth's life having to manage our carbon to such extremes, but for right now, when huge amounts of carbon must be pulled from the air at rates far exceeding what the natural world can accomplish, these intensive and expensive methods are the way to go.

The good news is people are working on them. Bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a method that uses biomass (like, say, ethanol) to create energy and then, instead of just releasing the carbon into the air, traps it inside concrete, plastic, or underground. Biochar is a term used to refer to partially burnt bio materials, which leaves a concentrated carbon source, which can then be buried. And Direct Air Capture pulls carbon from the air anywhere on the planet, which can then be stored in the same methods used in BECCS.
The bad news is that these methods aren't accessible to the public. Research regarding their net carbon benefit is still ongoing, and since they're all powered processes they do take energy to complete. If we had massive solar energy banks we could offset that, but...
The summary is that research is ongoing to try to make the processes more efficient, and pilot programs are up and running, but, much like our laws, there's an unavoidable time lag here.

Speaking of Our Laws...
Is there a time lag? Yeah. Does that mean we can just sit and wait for it to happen?
Not in the slightest.

The gears are already grinding for 2020. If your favorite candidate doesn't support the Green New Deal (or an even more aggressive climate policy) then ask them why not. If they don't change their stance, change your support.
I'm not kidding. In general I'm opposed to one issue candidates but we have to have a president that will sign whatever bill makes it though congress. And we have to have a congress that will pass the GND, or something more aggressive. So, talk to your reps, your senators, and your nominees for president. Find out what they think. Better yet, make it clear to them what you, as their constituent, expect them to think.

Right... So...
So, that's pretty much it. Reduce your carbon footprint, pay to reduce the social footprint, get involved in forest, grassland, wetland, and coastal ecosystem restoration, and refuse to elect anyone who doesn't understand what an urgent issue this is. And, if you happen to find a TARDIS, make it all happen starting 20 years ago.

#115: The Long Defeat

Original Artwork: http://mattiasfahlbergdesign.com/
Quote from JJR Tolkein's Galadriel

The world is going to end someday.

That's not a metaphor, y'all, it's a scientific fact. I'm not trying to be a downer, or to scare anyone, I'm just saying; 

Someday our star will expand and engulf this tiny planet we call home. 

And maybe humanity will survive it and maybe we won't, and maybe we'll have long since killed ourselves off because we scorched the planet with CO2. Who knows? The point is, the Earth will not last forever.

Conventional wisdom says the universe won't last forever, either. The science is still out on that one, so I can't say for sure, and maybe, even if the science were in, it might be wrong. We just don't know enough about the universe itself to say for certain. But for a long time it was assumed (and some still believe) that the universe will someday run out of energy, and it will stop.

And maybe collapse back in on itself and explode into a new universe?

But maybe not.

In fact, there's an author who wrote an entire YA fantasy series around this premise. Diane Duane writes about young wizards, and in the opening pages of her first book, So You Want to Be a Wizard, she lays it out for them.

As one renowned Senior Wizard has remarked, "Entropy has us outnumbered."

No matter how much preserving we do, the Universe will eventually die. But it will last longer because of our efforts--and since no one knows for sure whether another Universe will be born from the ashes of this one, the effort seems worthwhile.

Pretty heavy for a kid's book, right? I read this for the first time when I was 13 or so, and the impact of what was said was not lost on me. Duane wasn't done, though. She had another quote that hit me like a falling rock.

"There are no prizes for the service of life--except life itself."

And that, my friends, was my introduction to the idea of the long defeat.

I didn't know it at the time. All I knew when I was thirteen was that my parents had spent ten years in service to the poor, the beaten, and the hungry, only to be reviled and cast out by the church that claimed that very service was the highest calling for a Christian. They hadn't just "not gotten" a prize, they had actively been given the opposite of a prize. And I was mad about it. I was so mad about it, I'm still mad, 27 years later. I'll probably be mad until the day I die.

But something clicked in me when I read that book. And years later, when I read this quote by Dr. Paul Farmer, I knew what that something was.

We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers? 

No, it's not worth it. So you fight the long defeat.

The long defeat is a moral philosophy, and it's pervasive through both theological writings and common cultural narratives. It's the idea that you don't pick your side based on who will win. You pick your side based on what is right, and then you accept--deep in your bones--that your side is going to lose.

You're going to lose because you've sided with the poor, and the oppressed, and that means you have no power.

You're going to lose because you've sided with the sick and the dying, and that means your time is limited.

You're going to lose because you've sided with those that are reaching for a goal so distant it seems unattainable. And it will be.

You're going to lose because we don't live in a fantasy world. "Yippee kai yay, motherfucker," will not actually help you win against insurmountable odds.

But you fight anyway. You know you aren't going to get a prize. You know you're going to lose. And it won't just be you. It will be everyone at your side, who also chose to fight that fight, and in some ways watching them lose will be even harder than losing yourself. 

 But you do it anyway.

Janusz Korczak did it when he refused to leave his orphans, even as they were marched to their deaths. Instead he held the hand of one of the littlest, and tried to make sure the children weren't frightened.

Janusz Korczak and the orphans

Alexander Akimov did it when he stayed at Chernobyl during the meltdown, to help mitigate the damage. He knew the plant was lost, knew that tens of thousands were going to die, but he also knew fewer would die if he slowed the reaction.

The ruins

The four chaplains did it on the SS Dorchester when they calmly helped evacuate as many sailors as they could, including giving up their own life jackets to four lucky men, before going down with the 600 remaining souls on board the ship.

The four chaplains

You fight the long defeat because every moment you fight is a moment that brings some glimmer of hope. Because every pebble that doesn't rain down in the rock slide might mean that someone doesn't die, even if hundreds of others do. You fight because you're not trying to win, you're trying to help prevent the moment when someone else loses.

Everything about this philosophy is contained in the beautiful and heart wrenching principle song of Man of La Mancha.

You fight the long defeat because the world is better for it. Even when you lose. The world is still better.

And you fight because you don't know what will grow from your struggles. 

Henrietta Lacks died from cancer in 1951, at age 31. She lost her fight. 

But while she was fighting, researchers took a biopsy of her cells, and developed the world's first immortalized cell line. 

Henrietta Lacks

Henrietta Lacks lost.

But without her, we would not have eradicated polio.

Quote by Lin Manuel Miranda

For all that we call it the long defeat, we do not know what will grow from our legacy. Because perhaps the universe will not die. Perhaps the moral arc does bend towards justice. Martin Luther King, Jr died before he saw his dream become a reality, but my white son has a best friend who is a black girl, and that means something.

It may not mean victory. But it means that the world is better because we strive, with our last ounce of courage.

Because we fight the long defeat.

#114: I Respect Your Boundaries, You Just Don't Know What You Want; a tale of online dating

Alright y'all, have I got a STORY FOR YOU!

It all began this morning, with an innocent enough notification from OKC. 

Someone liked me! 

Now, I'm pretty much past being excited by this particular notification.  In fact, upon seeing it I generally sigh, and slowly thumb open the app, with the hope that this time--THIS TIME--it will be a man who has a decent grasp of the basic methods of communication and nothing on his profile ranting about how "women just won't ever give a nice guy a chance!"

The hope is small, but it's there, and that's why I keep opening the notifications.

Someday I'll learn.

ANYWAY...

This time there was a dude who had actually messaged me!  Always a good sign.  He had silver hair and a nice face and skimming his profile I saw that he had some general indicators of brains and all that was going well until I saw THIS:

Okay, setting aside the fact that he feels the need to brag about brushing his teeth...   He lied about his age on the form, to bypass people's filters?  And then he had the OVER INFLATED BALLSACK to say that he was genuine?

I did a quick check on the profile (as I had not actually paid attention to the age) to discover:

Our boy here listed himself as 35.

THIRTY-FIVE.

(Oh, and lest you think worse of him than I intend, that wasn't his first picture.  His first picture was actually his face, but as I am trying to be respectful of his anonymity I figured that was wrong to use since it would just be a big red circle so instead I used his SECOND picture which was this.  I mean, I'm gonna be ragging on him a lot, here, and I don't feel like I need to go out of my way to misrepresent the man by implying that he was shirtless in his FIRST profile pic.)

Anyway, back to the story.

I figure you all know me well enough to know that, given the option between asking someone why they're being an asshole, or letting it slide, I'm always gonna ask why they're being an asshole.  So I went ahead and messaged him back, with the following:

Yeah, I know, there's a typo.  Sue me.

All things considered I thought that was a fairly gentle confrontation.  I mean, I didn't call him names or anything.  I just pointed out that he was misrepresenting himself in order to circumvent a woman's right to outline her preferences and that that was some SUPER SHADY shit not to mention SHALLOW AS HELL.

But without the caps.

I legit thought he'd block me and I'd never hear from him again, because normally this is the way of men online, but no...  No my precious loves, this one was one of those guys who wants you to understand that the shady shit he has done is, in fact, not shady at all and he is actually a REALLY, REALLY GREAT GUY.

And so came the response:

Right, so... I guess he's trying to say that I was wrong?  Because ACTUALLY he's just saying that a woman's age criteria is arbitrary.  How silly of me.  Clearly he wasn't saying he knew better than her what she wanted.  He's just saying she's WRONG to want it.

HOW THE FUCK HAVE I BEEN SO MISLED?

And he didn't lie!  He lied and then admitted it.  Totally different thing.

I also love his "deep substance" comment.  Honey child, I know plenty of PhD's AND pianists, and while some of them are deep their depth doesn't STEM from that. 

So, I haven't messaged him back.  I know a lost soul when I see one.  But as this rumbled around in my brain I found I had so much more to say.  Not TO him, you understand, but rather ABOUT him. 

Him, and all his ilk.

First, let's address the violation of boundaries.  And yeah, we're gonna call it that.  Because I don't give a shit what you actually think about someone's criteria for dating.  You don't like their criteria?  You're welcome to not like them.  You're welcome to find them shallow, or elitist, or racist, or agist--WHATEVER--if their criteria puts them in that category.  But that doesn't mean you get to lie to them to get them to give you a chance.

LYING IN ORDER TO GET A CHANCE WITH SOMEONE WHO WOULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE GIVEN YOU A CHANCE IS STILL FUCKED UP, NO MATTER HOW FUCKED UP THEIR OWN PREJUDICES ARE.

Like, is this really a conversation we still have to have?  Further more, if they really ARE that shallow/elitist/racist/agist... WHY DO YOU WANT A CHANCE WITH THEM, ANYWAY?

I MEAN FOR GOD'S SAKE, I CAN'T HIT THE CAPS LOCK ANY HARDER SO PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BEING SO FUCKING DUMB.

*pant*pant*pant*

Okay.  So, people have boundaries, mkay?  And as long as their boundaries are really boundaries (as defined by choices they make for themselves and about themselves and their own person) and not an attempt to control others (as defined by trying to say your own choices should impact what someone else is allowed to do when it has nothing to do with you) then leave them the fuck alone!  Let them die in their insular little bubble or whatever. 

My favorite part of all this, of course, is that I can only imagine what Mr Deep Substance would say if a woman claimed to be "fit" and then he found out she was actually "overweight".  And she said she hadn't lied, she just didn't want to be judged on something arbitrary...

Just... just...

Okay.  I'm calm. 

I'M CALM, OKAY?

Anyway, now let's talk about the reality of age brackets.

One of the humorous things about this guy is that he almost didn't make it inside MY age filter.  Not because he's too old, but because he lists himself as too young.  I don't search for guys more than five years younger than me.  I probably wouldn't refuse to date one if I met him some other way, but I'll be real, 32 would be *pushing* it for me.  It is hard enough to find a man of maturity and self-possession, I don't need to make it harder by searching among the infants. 

Now, I'm not saying they don't exist, but I do not know any women who refuse to date men their own age.  I know very few women who won't at least consider 5-10 years up.  But I know a lot of women, like me, who do not want to date babies.

So, this guy (who, remember, I'm placing at 48) has probably lied his way out of dating a lot of women his own age.  He's probably lied his way out of dating women five years his junior.  He's probably even lied his way out of dating at least a handful of women a decade younger than him.  All for the chance that some 20 something will look at his profile and decide to take a chance on a guy more than twice her age, AFTER HE HAS LIED TO HER. 

But it's fine.  I bet they'll have so much in common, won't they?  I mean, he's got that amazing hygiene going for him...

Listen, friends, if someone pulls bullshit on you, remember that it's bullshit.  And if you say "hey, this is bullshit" and they say "oh, you know, I never thought of it that way" then it's fine.  They just made a mistake, and we all make mistakes.

But if they try to explain to you that, in fact, that stinking pile of excrement is not bullshit?  Consider writing a blog post about what a shallow asshole they are.   Then share it with me.  And we can march forward together in single solidarity.

#113: Baby Birding

Nature is full of many wonders, and many mysteries--

ooooo... so preeeeetty...

Aaaaaaand also many super gross things.  Like, wicked gross.  The number of species with parents who pre-digest food and then vomit into their children's mouths is squick inducing. 

(And I ain't even gonna get into koalas.  You wanna know about koalas, you just go watch True Facts.)

but don't say I didn't warn you

It's not a strictly avian phenomenon, but I think we're all familiar with the action among birds.  Which is why, when my friends and I were discussing the labor of managing and satisfying emotional entitlement, I asked couldn't we please call it baby birding, for short.

Confused?

Lemme 'splain.

We all know that there are people who are shit at dealing with their own emotions, right?  Frequently this category of human is just referred to as "men," but that's not 100% fair.  There are men who handle their emotions, and there are women who don't.  There's a cultural bias leaning towards women being the emotional work horses, and I'm plenty mad about that, but I don't want to reinforce the bias here.  The point is that, despite trends, people who can't handle their own emotions come in all flavors.  So, since I want a short hand that doesn't double down on cultural bullshit, I need to come up with one that is free of gender implications.

Now, I came up with a lot of clever options for this.  But, in the end, I decided simple was best.  Therefore, for the remainder of this post, people who don't handle their own emotional baggage will be known as "assholes".

Short and to the point, isn't it?

Anyway, we've all met assholes.  Some of us (I'm not pointing any fingers but I probably don't need to) are assholes ourselves.  If you're not conditioned to spot when someone is being an asshole, let me offer you some prime asshole examples:

If you are engaging with a person who treats all negative emotions as though they were anger, and directs that anger at you until you help them process the root emotion, that person is an asshole. 

If you are engaging with a person who acts as though your behavior and their emotional response to that behavior are both your responsibility, that person is an asshole.

If you are engaging with a person who, when you bring a problem to their attention, requires that you deal with their emotional state over being told something is a problem before they can even begin to address the actual problem, that person is an asshole.

If you are engaging with a person who expects you to have all the neutrality and insight of a therapist, without having any emotional response or problems of your own, that person is an asshole.

There are more, but you get the gist.  The defining characteristic of assholes is that they don't want to do the big, hard work of gnawing through their emotional gristle themselves.  They want to dump it on you, have you chew it up into small, easily digestible bits, and then spit it back into their mouths a little bit at a time, so they can absorb it slowly.

They want you to baby bird their feelings for them.

And here's the thing.  In some cases, baby birding emotions is the right call.  When one is raising children, for instance.  They are totally assholes, but they are assholes for a very good reason, and by baby birding them now you are teaching them to eat their own meat in due time. 

Between adults it is more complicated, but even then there are times you might choose, for good and proper reasons, to baby bird it.  Say your friend is having an emotional breakdown, and you've chosen to be one of their support people; that's a good time to baby bird everything. 

thank you, Robot Hugs

But it's important to note that we're talking about an extraordinary circumstance, combined with a purposeful choice on your part.  If it's a daily part of life, or you find yourself forced into doing it without making that choice...

Nuh-uh. 

Fuck that asshole.

#112: When We Come For Revenge.

I was talking with my brother-in-law, about the #metoo movement and other feminist related notions, and he told me something a long time friend of his had said.

"Right now, we just want equality.  God help you when we come for revenge."

She's right, you know.  We've tried being nice.  We've tried asking.  We've tried being sweet and reasonable and kind.

And you motherfuckers didn't listen.

You keep on with your "boys will be boys."

You keep on with your "#notallmen."

You keep on with your "sometimes women make false accusations."

YOU KEEP ON WITH YOUR EXCUSES ABOUT WHY IT'S OKAY TO TREAT US LIKE OBJECTS THAT ARE ONLY HERE TO PROVIDE YOU A COMFORTABLE EXISTENCE.

Guess what?

Not okay.

God help you when we come for revenge.

#111: Not a Goddamn Gazelle

So, last night this dude started messaging me. He told me I was "the most beautiful woman" he'd "ever seen", he didn't understand how I could possible be single, and that he'd sell his soul to the devil for the chance to be my boyfriend.

I started by being nice, okay!?! I told him I was positive he'd meant this as a compliment, but a man who would sell his soul just for beauty would ultimately be selling it for nothing. It was like, a super poetic and kind way of saying that he ought to give a shit about my personality. I WAS BEING GENTLE, GODDAMNIT.

But, let's be real. When they already don't see you as a person, gentle doesn't really work, does it?

Shit got weird.

well, i would imagine the devil would make you exactly how I want you to be lol ha jk but hope your having a good night

So, lemme get this straight... Bro from the Dark Side of the Internet is suggesting that, in a perfect world, he would buy my shell and have the Great Deceiver fill it with a personality he finds perfect? Clearly, I have things to say about this--but Dudelet wasn't done yet.

but i dont get how someone as stunning and yummy looking as you is single lol

Now, I've been trying to be softer with men recently. I'm aware that I've been a little hard edged and brittle, and I'm trying to tone that down. To set my phasers to stun, if you will.

But, at this point, my finger is twitching for the "max kill" button.

perhaps you've missed the crucial aspect that I must not only be desired by a man, I must find him desirable as well.

I was trying. Can you see how hard I was trying? I BELIEVE IN GENTLE EDUCATION, Y'ALL. I BELIEVE IN TEACHABLE MOMENTS.

My faith in teachable moments was being sorely tested, however.

Yeah, I know I'm ugly

Blessed Mother, give me the strength and compassion to respond to this without too much aggression.

Oh lord. One of these.

I have no idea if you're ugly or not. I wasn't talking about you. I was pointing out that there might be a perfectly valid reason for a woman to be single, regardless of whether or not men find her desirable.

At any rate, you appear to have missed some of the modern evolutions of culture, with regards to women and their place in society as independent participants as opposed to as male attachments. Perhaps that's something you might like to study up on, if you're going to try to hit on feminists.

I felt like that was a clear dismissal. Don't you feel like it was a clear dismissal? Also a very strong pointer in the direction of WHY I was dismissing him. Yes? Yes?

Apparently not.

Well I could get pheromone perfume isn’t that suppose to make you more desirable to women when well can’t blame me for thinking I’m ugly when you get rejected a lot something women will never have to go through in time that’s how you start to feel but usually it’s looks and or money that make a man desirable to most women would being able to get free frozen yogurt make me more desirable to you since I own a frozen yogurt store lol

I don't... I can't... I...

I'M NOT A GODDAMN GAZELLE, ALRIGHT? YOU DON'T NEED TO MASK YOUR SCENT IN ORDER TO HUNT ME DOWN! I LITERALLY JUST TOLD YOU THAT THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE HOW YOU DIDN'T SEE WOMEN AS INDEPENDENT PEOPLE, AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT IS TO SUGGEST MAYBE YOU COULD BIOLOGICALLY LURE ME IN?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

And I can't blame you for feeling ugly? It's our fault cause all we do is reject you? Women are never rejected? YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW IF MAYBE YOU COULD BUY ME WITH FROZEN YOGURT?






AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!


*heavy breathing*


Okay. Okay. I'm done now.

But I'm turning my phasers back to "inflict significant damage."

So there.

#110: Let's All Get Up To Speed, Shall We?

OKAY!

It's been a rough year, and rough years make for rough writing.  I broke my heart, fell into a rage fire about #notallmen, threw napalm on the fire and danced in the destruction over fascists, had health issues, and in general have just been FUCKING DEPRESSED.

Time to reboot.

Stages of Grief, work in progress

I think I more or less have a handle on my heart feels.  Acceptance goes a long way to help heal things, I think.  Once you know who you are, and what you need, then if someone can't give it to you--well--it just is what it is, right?  You can be sad, but what is there to be angry or hurt over?  People are who they are, and life goes on.

The fiery cataclysm of my social outrage is still burning, but I'm trying to use it more as a combustible fuel instead of a destructive explosion.  Let's be real... anything that volatile always has the possibility of getting out of hand, and I'd be an idiot to think I have it "all under control."  But I've remembered I don't HAVE to wallow in the flames, and that's a big step forward, I think.

thank you, Kate

The health stuff I'm doing my best with.  I really loathe the fact that I've tried so hard to treat my body well, and in turn it is trying to get in my WAY!!!!  I mean, I started RUNNING, FOR GOD'S SAKE.  I, who always swore I would only run if someone was chasing me!  Who was content to die first in the zombie apocalypse!  ME!!!!  I'm running, and my body is actually giving me SHIT about it?  It's just igry in all possible ways.

However, I did hurt my back recently, and instead of being out of commission for weeks and weeks I actually felt mostly better after about three days.  And that's an amazing difference.  So I guess this running bullshit really is helping.

I have a method.  Don't mock it.

So, the depression...

My depression is hard for me.  I don't feel like I really *deserve* it.  I don't feel like my life is hard enough, or something.  My mind knows that depression does not work that way.  That it's chemical, and real, and that just because something is harder for other people doesn't mean your own struggles aren't difficult.  Like, I get all that. 

But I have all this guilt that my privileged ass is depressed.

Anyway, I'm trying to handle that by blunt force.  When I start to feel guilty I just tell the guilty feels that they are illogical.  And I am trying to do the things that help with depression.  I eat well.  I get enough sleep.  I exercise.  I take my meds. 

But (and I can't really say that this is the most important thing, medically, but it's certainly the thing that seems to help the most on a day-to-day basis) I'm also creating again.

words are hard, but I do them anyway.

I write every day.
Charlotte and I paint together.
I crochet and make things that I find to be beautiful.
I sing.

And, while it means that some weeks I prioritize art over laundry (oh shit, I really need to do the laundry), in general I'm finding that creating things soothes me more than having a clean house.

Although, like, if any of y'all wanna come over and clean my house, I'm not going to say no.

At any rate, that's what's been up with me.  And hopefully I'll get back to these blog posts.  But, also, sometimes I will choose to put my energy other places for a while, and I have decided to be okay with that.