Tired of the talking heads

I'm exhausted. I really am. I'm experiencing disenfranchised-group-fatigue (DGF). I could hang in there with the best of them when Hillary Clinton was berated for having a vagina, when Sarah Palin's decision to run for high office was automatically made her a bad mother because she had a bunch of kids, when Barack Obama was called unAmerican because his middle name is Hussein and conservatives insisted he was a secret Muslim but really...I'm just over it. I'm so over it that during the last couple of days I've been unable to watch CNN or MSNBC since it's all Sotomayor bashing all the time.

OK...I get it. Perhaps people are uncomfortable because there are some nonwhites in high ranking places. I understand that there are a great many people who want to protect their "way of life," but doesn't it ever just get old?

I keep hearing people bring up the "wise Latina" comment as if it was poor judgment or a misuse of language. And I'm sick of hearing about "bias." As if minority groups are the only people in this country who hold biases.

So let me get this straight...For most of the history of this country, our laws were written by white men, most voters were white men, our presidents were all white men, most of the Supreme Court Justices were white men. During this history, who seems to have benefited the most from the laws of the land? Ummm...White men! Talk about biases. So why exactly should I entrust the destiny of this country into the hands of the very people who have historically oppressed every group but their own? Oh. That's right. Because they are the all mighty, wise, white men.

I don't have anything against white men. But I think that if we're going to talk about race or ethnicity "clouding" judgment all groups should get the same treatment. Could you imagine Chief Justice John Roberts ever answering questions about his whiteness the way Sotomayor has been asked about her Latinaness? It doesn't happen because we tend to think of whiteness as mainstream, something that is in while all else is out.

So for now, I'm avoiding television, because quite frankly, I've heard enough about affirmative action hires and the "advancement" of minority groups.

And this was supposed to be a post-racial society.

Stay classy, Bill O'Reilly

I really do try not to encounter Bill O'Reilly on a regular basis. I watched about 20 minutes of his show a week ago (please, don't ask why) and felt as if I had lost a couple of brain cells. But when the ladies of Jezebel posted this I was curious. I'm not even angered by what he says in this piece. I'm just insulted at the very choice of topic.

Basically, the clip speaks for itself. Three white people are sitting around and trying to analyze why black folks like Michael Jackson. Because apparently he wasn't black anymore because he chose to have white children. So I guess that Angelina Jolie and Madonna are officially not white anymore. And how about Meg Ryan? Did she reject whiteness because she adopted an Asian little girl? But I digress...

My biggest problem here is the very question: "Why do black people like Michael Jackson?" And I'll answer that question with another question: Why do we have to justify it to you or anyone else? Imagine if the folks at BET sat around and asked (without any white people in the room): Why do white people love [insert any famous person with a drug habit, criminal record or seedy past here]? The question would be absurd! Because no one would ever ask with the words "white people," they would simply ask: why do people love..." But because we're black our tastes, culture and allegiances have to be analyzed and processed for the masses.

A change is gonna come (to this blog)

I should apologize for being inconsistent. It's been hard for me to keep up and part of the reason is because I never really had a theme for the blog. It was supposed to be a hybrid of a personal blog with a number of general rants about politics, the 'isms and current events.

Over the last few weeks, I have struggled with posting updates on my life and writing about current events. And I decided, once and for all, this is no longer a personal blog. It's been many weeks since I've posted anything about my life and quite frankly, I don't have much to say that I can share on the Internets.

Because I promote this blog on Twitter and Facebook,I can no longer simply update my friends on what's going on in my life. All that said, I'm glad my audience has been extended beyond my small circle and I'm proud of the feedback (positive and negative) I've received from friends and family and from complete strangers.

Although there isn't much activity in the comments sections (several people have complained about the inability to post anonymous comments...Sorry, not changing that rule), I get lots of feedback via email and Twitter. I'd love to have more. Let me know if you have an idea for a post, a complaint or just want to argue a point.

I hope you'll all continue reading and I appreciate the support.

The fatherless

Melissa Harris-Lacewell at the Nation recently blogged about President Obama and Black fatherhood. I found the piece interesting and provocative, but I found most of the comments left by readers to be disgusting.

As someone who grew up in a single-parent household, with a mother who worked long hours, I agree wholeheartedly with most of what she has to say about embracing and empowering "nontraditional" families.

The majority of black children in this country -- wealthy, middle class or poor -- will grow up in a female-headed household with a working mother. The lucky ones will have grandparents, aunts and uncles to support them. The unlucky ones will grow up in poverty and isolation.

There's been a lot of talk from Obama and other prominently black figures about black fatherhood and how important it is. I couldn't agree more. But, I think Harris-Lacewell's point is that while than promoting black fatherhood in the future we should think about the generations of children who are growing up without a father now. Not pity them or give them handouts, but understand them and stop marginalizing and demonizing their families. We need to support the grandparents who help raise these children and improve the schools where they spend most of their time.

Much like our president, I was raised in a supportive environment,where academic excellence and hard work were valued. Also much like the president, my parents were no longer together (although my father is still in my life). And even though it was lonely and often difficult for us, I grew up with better influences in my life than several of my friends who lived with both parents. As a child who grew up in the 1990s, I became used to people judging us based on our familial status. My home was supposedly broken because my father didn't live with us and my mother wasn't home to cook dinner for me. Still, I graduated from high school and even went on to receive honors at my college graduation.

All this was made possible because my mother was able to pay for a decent education and because from the time I was in the fifth grade my great-aunt was there when I got home from school every day. I was one of the lucky ones in many ways.

In this country, we punish children because of their life circumstances. We close doors, rather than open them. More fathers should step up to the plate, but let's ensure until that happens we're sending all children to decent schools and providing safe and healthy daycare opportunities where possible.

Faith, not religion, defines us

When I was in college, I was constantly defending my faith. I encountered many, many people who could not respect that I am a Christian and I think I should thank some of them. In defending Christianity, I learned more about faith than any bible study class could have taught me.

I have strong opinions about both religion and democracy and do not see why there are many who think they are incompatible. Over the past few years, there have been two opposing views about this topic. One says, our government should be run entirely separate from religious interference. The other says our government was founded on Christian principles and should continue to operate under them. I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't believe we should force Christianity on anyone, but I also am not opposed to those who would freely talk about their faith when confronted with moral or ethical issues. America is big enough to allow for religion in our dialogues.

People have made a lot of assumptions about me in past when they've heard me say I'm Christian and even more when I've said I've been attending Catholic parishes for the last 15 years. I've been accused of being homophobic, anti-woman and close-minded. I am none of those things. In my own struggles away from and then back toward God, I have made up my mind about who he is and what he wants. It is not Catholicism that defines my worldview, but rather my faith in a tolerate and benevolent God that does. I've never been a church where hate was preached. I've never heard anything but words of love and peace from a priest or pastor. I've never been to a Mass that did anything but celebrate Jesus' message and good works.

I know there are others out there who would use religion to divide us. There are those who are obsessed with what they believe is right and wrong. I respect their faith, but I cannot celebrate it. Acceptance and tolerance is all I've encountered from the church. Faith is what sustains me in good times and bad and it gave me the basis to be open-minded and progressive.

The written word: The gift that keeps on giving...

Every couple of years my friends ask me to write a book list. I'll admit it. I'm a book junkie. Literature is my crack. So here are my suggestions from books I've read in the last twelve months, some are old, others are new, all are excellent:

Nonfiction:

1. Amazing Grace by Jonathan Kozol -- Sad, true and still very relevant even though it was written in the 1990s.
   
2. The Working Poor by David Shipler -- Takes a moderate view on the causes of poverty and the plight of the poor.
3. Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed by Philip Hallie -- A very powerful story about how a few people saved thousands of lives during WWII. Hallie was a professor of ethics and has a very interesting perspective on good v. evil
4. The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs -- Even if you don't have a background in economics this book is a good read. Sachs clearly lays out the reasons for poverty in the developing world, uses real examples to explain this underlying theory and rather than pointing fingers, he really embraces global poverty as a problem that can be solved.
   

Fiction:

1. The Book of Night Women by Marlon James -- This novel is powerful, poetic and a page-turner like I haven't read in ages. Simply put: I loved it. It's written in patois, so if you don't care for dialects it may not be for you.
2. The Hour I First Believed by Wally Lamb -- Lamb has a disturbingly good grasp of how people unravel after tragedy and try to put the pieces back together. Not his best work, but very, very good.
3. Brown Girl, Brownstones by Paula Marshall -- This coming of age story set in Brooklyn during the depression and World War I era is beautifully written and compelling story about the plight of immigrants then and now.
4. A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini -- Hosseini has written two books and both are beautiful narratives, but I truly loved this book. You get two compelling heroines for the price of one and a sad story intertwined with the disturbing past and present of Afghanistan.
5. Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides -- There's something a little mysterious about this story. It is a family history that overlaps with the history of Detroit, America's most neglected city.
   

Honorable Mention (good but not great):

1. American Wife by Curtis Sittenfeld
2. All This and Heaven Too by Rachel Field
3. Someone Knows My Name by Lawrence Hill

Currently reading: The House at Riverton

Weighty matters

I spill a lot of ink about body image and some people think I'm a little obsessed with it. I'll be the first to admit that I am. Which is exactly why I was both touched and disturbed by this article in WaPo a friend of mine tweeted about today. For anyone who has known someone struggling with an eating disorder this is particularly difficult to read. But Sarah's story worth telling. Not simply because eating disorders need more attention, but because in many ways it's all a matter of degrees.

I've never suffered from an eating disorder, but I came scarily close when I was 13 years old. I ate nothing but crackers for three weeks and lost a total of 15 pounds. And I remember feeling like a failure afterward, thinking I could have lost more and feeling overwhelmed by the disappointment of still being fat. My friends intervened (I've fallen out or lost touch with most of them since, but they will always hold a special place in my heart) and I was back on track in a matter of months.

Since then I've had my ups and down and tried every diet under the sun. I eventually trimmed down with the help of Weight Watchers, slow and steady - the way it's supposed to be done. In 2007, I lost a lot of weight, nearly 30 percent of my starting weight. Then in 2008, I gained 10 pounds and went through yet another period of feeling inadequate in every way. I'm not proud of the amount of time I've spent counting calories and looking in the mirror, wishing I was 10 or 20 pounds lighter, but it is a part of me in a way I cannot put into words.

I'm smart, funny and loyal, but I would have never used any of those words to describe myself. I would have used one word: fat. The word that followed me my whole life and dominated everything I did. And although I could never pretend to know what Sarah went through or what her family is going through now, I know that's easy for young women to reduce their entire self worth to a single attribute: their weight.

Eating disorders are not simply exaggerated body image issues -- there are many factors contributing to this serious mental illness, but I firmly believe they could not exist without our obsession with perfection.

We are constantly bombarded with images of fat and thin, right and wrong. And it is nearly impossible to ignore them.

There are few things more important in life than taking care of oneself and being healthy, but we are so much more than what we see in the mirror -- no matter how large or small.

The "Purity" Myth

Jessica Valenti, who has written three books on modern feminism is promoting her new book The Purity Myth. She stopped by the Today Show this morning and it was a very, very sad display of feeding the message on the part of Kathy Lee and Lakita Garth (who wrote a book promoting abstinence).

You should really take a look at the video. Almost nothing Valenti said seemed to matter and although I don't always agree with her and haven't yet read her newest book, I think her point is valid here -- While sexuality is indeed important, it is not the most important thing about being a women and we should spend less time forcing our little girls to focus on their "purity" and more time promoting their personal qualities.

Just listen to some of the phrases said "girls who sleep around," and "prostitots." Scary language that could only in the most awkward way be applied to boys.

I'm back...Kinda

I know...I know. I haven't updated in weeks. I didn't forget about my faithful readers (all ten of you). I've just been incredibly overwhelmed with school. The semester is almost over, which means that I will probably freak out within the next two weeks and have a total breakdown...If you want to see some real comedy, bring a video camera to said breakdown...It'll surely be a viral video on YouTube.

There isn't much to report on a personal level. I have no social life and haven't ventured outdoors in what seems like forever (other than to go to school or work). In the meantime, see my post below.

I have been doing a lot of writing lately. But I'm not ready to share it with the world. So maybe if you ask nicely I'll send you an excerpt.

I promise to return to the real world again soon.

Until then be well and pray for good weather.

Race still matters

Over the course of the last three or four months I've had the opportunity to speak openly about race with my friends -- black, white and Latino. Race was always something my black friends and I spoke of openly, but my white friends always seemed to feel squeamish when the subject came up. I learned over the years this was likely a response to fear of being called racist, which I somewhat understand. But I've made a point to try to press my friends to speak about race at least conceptually since the election and I hope others are trying to do this as well.

What I have found is disappointing. Although some identify themselves as progressives or liberals, they hold the same conservative views about race that have been and perhaps will always be part of the master narrative. What I hear most often is "race doesn't matter," and "I was raised not to see color." But when pressed with more questions, these arguments tend to evaporate into debates about wherever discrimination exists and even occasionally if it really matters (i.e. "I know plenty of hard-working, successful black people").

The argument that discrimination has been diminished since the Civil Rights Movement won't get any dissent from me. I know it has. But it has not been eliminated. And what frustrates me is the commonly held position that because discrimination and racism are less tangible and visible than they were in the past that they do not exist or matter. Discrimination does persist and will continue to do so until we can speak openly about it without evoking the old "race card" rebuttal.

We have an obligation to each other to really engage in a conversation about race and racism, without reducing it to anecdotes and stereotypes. I plan to continue discussing it within my circle and I hope I'm not alone.

The Color of Beauty

A few of my friends have had to endure rants and ramblings about the intersection of race and perceptions of beauty and I'm sure they think I'm crazy. But every so often a study or report comes out about black girls and their perceptions of themselves and how society perceives them. I am always saddened by the results.

Nearly 70 years ago sociologists Mamie and Kenneth Clark did an experiment to determine how black children perceived themselves by using white and black dolls and asking them questions about which ones they thought were "nice" and which ones they'd rather play with. Those children are senior citizens now and grew up in an anti-black segregated society. Overwhelmingly, the children identified the white doll as the nice one and said they preferred to play with the white doll.

Every few years someone has tried to replicate this study but this week Good Morning America added a new question. They asked 19 black elementary students which doll was prettier. Nearly half of the girls identified the white doll as prettier, despite the fact that the dolls are identical except for color. The black boys said both dolls were pretty or said the black doll was prettiest.

I'm not really surprised by the results, just saddened. As a black female I am very aware of the mainstream perceptions of beauty and how they can be harmful to the self-esteem of black girls and women. Black women face all the same self-confidence issues that white women do but also face issues about skin shade and hair texture. Imagine this, the first time I went to purchase makeup in a pharmacy, the darkest shade of foundation was still too light for me. Also consider the images black girls and teenagers are bombarded with in magazines...White girls/women are always featured prominently and black girls/women are rarely featured at all and when they are featured on the cover of a women's magazine they are typically light in complexion with long relaxed hair and "European features."

While this experiment is not exactly empirical data, it is an indication that something is wrong with the ways black little girls see themselves. It is clear, the girls interviewed by Good Morning America associate whiteness with beauty. So I think it's important for us to ask why. And to have a dialogue about modern perceptions of beauty that is race-sensitive.

Goodbye, newspapers. You'll be missed.

Print is dying a slow, cruel death. I'm quite upset about it, but I understand why. Newspapers, magazines and even broadcast news (which is still doing relatively well), have seriously failed at advancing public debate.

There was a time, believe it or not, that newspapers informed public opinion, reported on local, national and international happenings and also were...dare I type it...Interesting. The writing was better, the editing was better and reporters were less likely to be disgruntled-types working for the man and more likely to innovative.

I've been thinking a lot about how I get my news and whether or not I've contributed to the problem and I'm sorry to admit that I have. And this is why, I don't have time to read the New York Times daily and it takes me a week to get through the Sunday Times. Instead, I scan the headlines of several newspapers every day (NYTimes, WaPo, Newsday and the Daily News). I get most of my national news from CNN.com, Politico and local news from neighborhood blogs.

While, I hate the idea of losing the elite newspapers like the Times, WaPo and other broadsheets, I think it's time they make changes to reflect American life and modern attitudes.

And aren't these papers and their management teams largely to blame for their own demise? We just survived (although the jury is still out on whether or not we'll recover) one of the least transparent and borderline corrupt presidential administrations in recent history and yet, I don't recall seeing many enterprising pieces in the Times or the other elite papers about the effects of the administration. Everyone loves writing about expert opinions and speculating, but there are so few stories in the news about what happens when policies are implemented. It's called spin for a reason. And the Bush administration out-witted the press by spinning nearly everything and the Obama adminstration will likely do the same. It's the nature of politics and has sadly become the nature of journalism.

When I decided to become a journalist at age 15, I thought I would be writing about topics like race, poverty, gender, education and public policy. I didn't realize I would be spending time writing stories that satisfied readers, rather than provoked them. And most of the reporters and editors I know want to do just this. They want to write thought-provoking pieces that inform, excite, anger and engage the masses, but instead we have been reduced to ambulance chasers. Newspapers do very little to inspire or enrage and a lot to feed the existing narratives.

I'm sad to see newspapers go and I'd like to see them survive, but I don't think that will happen without some serious reflection on why so many are failing.

A very, very sad piece from Salon.com

Ann Bauer of Salon.com wrote this piece about her autistic son Andrew.

The part that resonated most with me is this line: "I am not alone."

I've been thinking about public policy options that would help families with autistic children more. If any of you have ever seen mental illness or intellectual disabilities up-close, you know there is so little help out there. Doctors hardly understand it. But families have to cope with it.

My heart goes out to Ann and her family.

I've been to the Special Olympics and I was proud to go

I don't want to make a big deal about President Obama's late night remarks about his bowling score. He apologized and it's important for the nation to accept his apology and move on. But I think it's important to clarify why people were upset it.

My sister is 22 years old. She'll never drive a car or go to college. She'll never take a trip to the mall by herself. She'll never get married or start a family of her own. And I cannot tell you how painful it is to watch someone struggle with basic tasks like reading or paying for a sandwich at a deli. My sister has autism and when she does something that seems minor to the rest of us, it's a big deal to my family. Each time she does something without prompting or reaches a milestone in her development it brings tears to my mother's eyes.

When my sister was younger she participated in the Special Olympics and she took the third place prize in a relay race and I was so proud of her I remember that day as if it was yesterday, even though it was about 10 years ago. The focus it took for her to run that race and do something other teenagers take for granted was heartbreaking. And she needed to do it. My sister doesn't understand everything but she knows she's different. She knows that even though there are only three years between us, life will always be a little harder for her than it is for me. Everything she does is tainted by her autism. Running in that race was important for her because it was something she could be proud of.

I heard a lot of people defend the president and I know he didn't mean anything by his remark, but the larger issue is this: everyone in that room laughed at his joke. Everyone in the room poked fun at the Special Olympics, as if it was a punchline. For me, that was the most disturbing part of the interview -- That my sister and the other athletes who compete in the Special Olympics are funny in some way.

My sister didn't choose to be born with a disability anymore than I chose to be born female and black. She didn't choose it. To laugh at people who train to do something that is supposed to be confidence-building is disturbing and beneath us as Americans. We laugh at things we don't understand, rather than trying to understand them. We take the low road, because it's easier than taking the high road.

I don't find anything funny about mental or physical disabilities and I doubt I ever will. Until you've fought those little battles and accepted the limitations of someone you love, you can never understand the courage it takes for someone with special needs to participate in something the rest of us mock.

And until you've seen the dedication the organizers, athletes and parents have with your own eyes, you cannot understand how wonderful this organization really is and how much it means to everyone involved.

Is nothing sacred?

Sometimes I'm really glad I don't have any kids, because there are so many things I could not explain to them. The latest of these things is the new and "improved" Dora the Explorer, who has lost a few pounds, grown a few inches and accessorized!

Mattel and Nickelodeon have revealed the new and "improved" Dora and here she is and once again, corporate America has demonstrated to us (and little girls everywhere) that it doesn't matter how smart you are or if you're adventurous, because, as a female, you have to be nice to look at too. Not that the old Dora, who was shorter, chubbier and carried a backpack, wasn't cute. She was adorable. But I don't understand why she needed to change.

I thought the purpose of Dora was to encourage learning, not to look like she just stepped out of the Limited Too, after Daddy and Mommy took her on a shopping spree.

But I guess I was wrong.

The Sigificance of Role Modeling

I've written about the Rihanna-Chris Brown incident before. And I'm not trying to water-down its sigificance by calling it an incident. But I don't care for convicting people, even in the court of public opinion, until they've been proven guilty. Like many people I'll be watching to see what the end result of the proceedings about this event will be.

A friend of mine brought this informal survey of Boston teenagers to my attention. The results are nothing less than terribly disturbing. Nearly half of teens between the ages of 12 and 19 believed that Rihanna was to blame for being beaten by her boyfriend. Let's ponder that for a moment. Nearly half.

I would be lying if I said I'm surprised. I'm not. And perhaps that is cynical, but just the conversations I've had with my own friends, who are adults, have disturbed me. Many of us seem to be making excuses for why Chris Brown would do something like this. I've heard excuses ranging from: "he's young," to "we all make mistakes."

Enough has been said about what Rihanna can do to be a good role model to young girls. I'm less concerned about that at the moment. I'm most concerned with what we adults can do to ensure the teens and children in our lives don't hold the opinion that there is something a woman can do that would make her responsible for the violence of another person.

We all have a responsibility to explain to them violence is never acceptable. We also have a responsibility to remind them if Rihanna decides to forgive Chris Brown that is her decision and it doesn't make her pathetic or stupid. Yes, Rihanna is a singer and a byproduct of that has made her a role model. But she isn't an expert and she doesn't always make the right choices.

Violence is never acceptable and we should all acknowledge this. It doesn't matter if it exists between boyfriend and girlfriend, husband and wife, father/mother and child. It is always wrong.

If anything can come out of this terrible event, I hope the public can engage in a real conversation about domestic violence. It's a topic that's worth more than a few Lifetime movies and Law and Order episodes.

On the White House Council on Women and Girls

There appears to be a lot of discussion about President Obama's new Council on Women and Girls in the blogosphere. According to Politico, there's a lot angry women out there. Let me say first, I think this is an excellent first step in elevating women's issues into the national dialogue officially.

It seems there are two major issues the opposition has:

1) We don't need a council on women and girls. Lisa Belkin over at the NYTimes seems to be leading the charge on this.

2) That a White House council with no full time staff or deadline is not going far enough.

With both objections, I see the point. I dismiss Belkin's assertions that "too many of the problems women and girls have in the world stem from the fact that the problems are considered 'their' problems — 'women’s problems' — rather than problems that both genders share." This is simply untrue. There are many problems women face disproportionally including rape, domestic violence, poverty and more. Belkin goes on to say that materity leave, unequal pay and other issues are family problems. I couldn't disagree with her more. If I make less than my male counterpart with whom I share similar credentials, I'm not really sure how that becomes a family problem. I don't have any kids to support and I'm not married, yet I may still face discrimination. Women (mothers especially) are far more likely to face poverty than men. The vast majority of people living below the poverty level are women and their children and while that is a family issue, it is also a woman's issue. But I think most importantly, women are still crowded out of certain professions and crowded into others (mostly low-paying).

The second point, that this council doesn't go far enough, is true as well. If we are really hoping to eliminate the wage gap between men and women (of all races) and create a more equitable society we'll need more than a White House council. We'll need to educate the public and do our best to eliminate stastical discrimination amongst employers. But like so many issues with this new president we need to be a little patient. This is an important first step in examining those issues affecting women and girls. I hope very much the creation of this council is not just a symbolic gesture to reward women voters, but instead brings many voices to the table about how we can raise the next generation of girls in a more equitable society.

Oh, the single life

There are two very serious downsides to being single. One is only having one income, when you think you can use a bigger apartment, a new car or whatever. The other is when older people lecture you about being single. Yes. There are other downsides I know. Like Valentines Day, Saturday nights alone, wanting to share sunsets and sunrises with another person. But those things are a given. I can deal with that. I can even deal with not having a second income (oh, but I could use a spare bedroom for an office!). But what I can't deal with is having older people lecture me about my single state...As if I chose it and as if it's something to be ashamed of.

This brings me to chapter 103,403 of my book, entitled: How Someone Really Pissed Me Off Today. You can probably pre-order it on Amazon.

So after meeting with my group for the 1 millionth time (love you, guys!), I ran into a colleague of my mother's on the subway. She was going to visit a friend in Brooklyn and was trying to avoid the Q train because it goes express for like 15 stops or something this weekend (I also have been forced to take the F everywhere). She sat next to me on the subway and made small talk. I mostly discussed my new found love(s)...The cutest flat shoes ever. And she talked about her kids and grandkids. As we were nearing our stop (yes, unfortunately she was also getting off at my stop) she asked me what my relationship status was. I begrudgingly told her. I hate when people ask that question, because some kind of judgment always ensues. So here's what the conversation went like:

Mom's friend: Single? Why? Did you just break up with someone?
Me: No.
MF: When was your last relationship?
Me: Ummm. A while ago. Probably a couple of years.
MF: A COUPLE OF YEARS!
(everyone nearby looks at me)
Me: Yeah. It's been a while.
MF: Well, you can't go on like that.
Me: Ummm. Why not?
MF: It's not healthy.

At this point we get off the train and she continues to follow me down the street.

MF: I don't understand young women today. I thought my daughter was bad, waiting until she was 30 to get married. You don't want to have your first kid when you're 30. You'll be too old!
Me: Actually, my mom was 36 when she had me.
MF: Well, she took a tremendous risk.

At this point I changed the subject by making a random observation about the neighborhood and we parted.

But really? First, why do older women always assume everyone wants kids? I mean, I get it. I do want kids eventually (ya know, after getting married). But just because I have ovaries doesn't mean I spend a lot time thinking about putting them to use. It's a little rude. Secondly, I really don't need someone who is basically a stranger to me making me feel bad about my state of constant singleness. Some days I feel bad enough without having commentary from the peanut gallery.

By the time I got home, which was about three minutes later, I was fuming. I went through all the stages of grief in ten minutes.

Denial -- That didn't just happen.
Anger -- She has some nerve
Bargaining -- Maybe I asked for it.
Depression -- I hate my life!
Acceptance -- Where are my cookies? (cue chewing)

But what am I grieving? My dismal relationship status? And why is it so dismal? I have a lot to be happy about, right? I have a job, a degree (and another on the way), a great apartment, a few good friends and a new pair of shoes (sooo cute). And yet, my elation about my shoes was ruined by this lecture.

I guess it all comes down to this: When you're a young woman, being single is still perceived as having a deficit of something in your life. Being an old maid is still something that concerns many of us, not matter how much we valuable other things like our platonic relationship, careers and general state of well-being.

There are plenty of benefits to being in a healthy, happy relationship, but not having one isn't the end of the world either. So the next time you're thinking about lecturing someone about the relationship status or lack there of, keep it to yourself...I'm sure they've considered it without your reminding them.

OK...OK...I get it

Jeez, people. I had no idea so many of you were reading, but I'm glad to know you missed me. I've attempted to post several blogs, but always get distracted. So tonight's post will just be a general update about the goings on of my 20-something life.

I've been a tad busy. Every day has gone a little like this:

9 a.m. to 10 a.m.

• Wake up
• Shower
• Read email
• Make instant coffee

10 a.m. - 11 a.m.

• Catch up with reading from the night before
  
• Read email again
• Read work email
• Freak out about work email
  

11 a.m. to noon

• Freak out about personal email overload
• Consider declaring email bankruptcy
• Turn on sad music
• Start working again
• Cry
  

Noon-till whenever class starts

• Write proposals/reports
• Work on policy projects
• Eat
• Listen to more sad music
  

Whenever class starts until 10 p.m.

• Pretend to listen to professors talk about issues in jargon that I only half understand
  
• Sigh over the never ending workload
• Meet with policy group
• Rant with policy group
• Take subway home and try to avoid creepy men (see previous posts)
  

After this, it usually varies with some combination of talking on the phone, g-chating, writing, reading my mentee's work, working on proposals and trying to save the world.

But yeah. It's been special. Not that I completely hate it. I love writing and I love policy. Combining the two seems to be a good mix for me, but I'm so tired of looking at a computer screen. I mean even when I'm not looking at a computer screen I'm considering looking at one.

These days, I have to clear my inbox every few hours. It's crazy. I have emails from my clients, I have emails from nonprofits, I have emails from my mother and friends. I love hearing from people, but I can't keep up with you folks.

So that's my brief update for the day. I'll get back to y'all with something a little more substantive later. I'm thinking about a topic...It'll most likely have to do with race...since that's been on my mind lately.

Enough!

The American public has this really annoying way of demonstrating our "isms" after a major news event. We got a good taste of this last year when Hillary Clinton ran for president, last week when the NY Post published a cartoon depicting our president as a chimp and for the last several weeks since this Rihanna and Chris Brown drama went down. The Daily News published this article today and I've had enough.

OK. So we don't know all the details of went on between Chris Brown and Rihanna. All we know is he was arrested and she was treated in the hospital. Until we know more, we should really stop from speculating. But while we are speculating there's only so much that should be said. The Daily News article, which is mostly about Chris Brown going to anger management, has some really disgusting quotes from anonymous sources, including:

"It didn't help that Rihanna grabbed the keys out of his rented Lamborghini and threw them down the street. She knew it would really infuriate Chris, and it worked."

Really, so now throwing keys justifies violence? I get it. Chris Brown is young. He's talented. And I don't know that he's guilty. But rather than saying, "he didn't do it." The rhetoric seems to be, "he did it but it wasn't his fault." So whose fault is it then? Rihanna's? The mighty media?

I intentionally did not look at the pictures of Rihanna's injuries that TMZ posted because I thought it was terrible that they were even available. So I don't know how extensive her injuries were. But if he is indeed responsible for them he should be punished. If he is not, then whoever resorted to that kind of violence should be punished. But enough with the "it's OK to hit a woman when..." talk.

Another day, another jerk

I'm really, really curious to know what the thought process behind asking a woman for her phone number more than once is. As you can see from last night's post, I encountered this problem on the subway yesterday while I was trying to finish my reading for class AND listening music. Today, I had a similar experience when I ran to the corner store to buy some milk. Not only did some random man, who is at least 30 years older than me, start talking to me but he also followed me into the store and continued to harass me until a kindly, elderly woman told him to leave me alone.

Look, I won't lie, I'm highly stressed and very, very tired. The last few weeks have made me increasingly agitated and I have a very short fuse. But I really think there is something wrong with a society where men feel they can just talk to any woman they please even after she tells them she doesn't want to be spoken to. I am not saying all men do this, but there are some that do and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not something commonly practiced by women.

In my life, I have never treated another person with so little respect. I don't have an issue with making small talk in the supermarket or saying hello to neighbors but I think following someone or continuing to bother them when they have already politely said no to your advances is clearly a form of sexual harassment. There's something about this behavior that implies, "no matter what you say I'm still going to try to get what I want." It is exceedingly frustrating.

I know a lot of women who intentionally try to avoid eye contact or simply ignore people who talk to them. While, I don't judge this behavior it is against my personal beliefs. If someone says hello, I say hello back. Simple as that. But it shouldn't be permission to follow me or talk to me like I'm an object rather than a person.

I'm going to explode in 5...4...3...2...

Soooo...how do I start? I guess since my head feels like it's going to explode at any minute I'll start from the beginning.

Rant 1:
Dear Random Men on the Subway,
I tried. I really, really tried to be nice. Look, if I was interested you wouldn't have to ask for my phone number more than once and you certainly wouldn't have to ask for it five times before I abruptly got up and moved away. No, I don't want to be your friend. No, I don't have a boyfriend. And that doesn't change the fact that you're still annoying me. You have forced me to be rude to a complete stranger. I hate that. But it was necessary.

Best of luck with some other young woman who is listening to her IPod and reading, you jerk who obviously cannot take a hint.

Hate always,
Andrea

Rant 2:

So when I graduate, I'll have a degree in Urban Policy Analysis and Management. But right now, I'm seriously considering not graduating and transferring from Milano to Wagner at NYU. Why? Because 1) My policy lab class is a stupid exercise in vanity and superficial bull. Not that it isn't challenging...Oh, it is. But the challenging part is scheduling constant meetings around five busy people some of whom have FULL TIME JOBS and working with limited data on issues that cannot be solved in five weeks. 2) I haven't actually learned anything from policy lab. Like what's there to learn? Group work is difficult because everyone has other stuff to do? If I don't have enough time to actually analyze something I can just BS through it in a pretty looking Power Point presentation. 3) If I get kicked out of one more New School building/room I'm going to hurt someone. 4) When I first encountered an admissions counselor at the New School, they told me, "yes, many of our students work full time. Most of our classes are at night." What they neglected to mention was that in Fall 2008 the campus would be downsized and we would lose an entire building's worth of classrooms, making it almost impossible to schedule the majority of classes at night instead of in the middle of the day. Thanks, a lot Milano.

Gradute school is expensive and I'm OK with it being challenging too. But I'd like to learn something from a class, instead of actually just doing a ton of work to simulate a "professional environment." I'm 25 and have a two page resume, I don't need to simulate a professional environment. Been there. Done that. And I'm actually one of the younger people in the program. I am sooooo close to joining the revolutionaries that took over campus last month...Just cause. I'm pissed!

I'm going to go eat a brownie or six to calm myself.

Morning conclusion: Disney is bad for children and adults

I know what you're thinking. "Of course, it's bad for children. Duh, everyone knows that." Or perhaps you are thinking, "it's Disney, how can it be bad?"

Well, I'm glad you asked. During the Oscars last night I was twice traumatized when that disgusting roach from WALL E was featured in clips from the movie. Clearly, the animators at Disney have never actually seen a New York City roach, or Roachzilla, as I like to call them. They aren't cute and cuddly. They're filthy disgusting creatures that make me paranoid and are plotting against humankind. Not that I didn't enjoy WALL E. I did. It was cute and all. But every moment that disgusting sidekick of his was on screen I wanted to jump up and spray it with a can of Raid.

That's just strike one against Disney. But think about it. How many vermin have been prominently featured in Disney movies? The mice in Cinderella, the ants in a Bugs Life, and the rats in Ratatouille, Jimmie Cricket from Pinocchio. All vermin!

Children see these cute vermin and think "awww, I can't let Mommy and Daddy kill them." It's a conspiracy.

The second major problem with Disney is the fact that it took them 75 years to create a black princess! Really? 75 years! And get this, she's also the first American princess. And get this...She's not really a princess! When I was a kid, Jasmine was my favorite princess, even though Sleeping Beauty was my favorite movie, because Jasmine was different in a world of Aurora, Belle, Ariel and Cinderella. Then came Pocahontas and Mulan and it seemed that Disney was working its way up to a black princess. And then the worst possible thing happened. They stopped making princess movies! There's a lot of people who come to Disney's defense. Disney movies are typically based on folklore or fairytales and perhaps Disney couldn't find a well-known fairy tale about a black princess. I don't buy it. It's called...Aida. Yes, Aida is based on an opera, but so?! Disney financed a broadway production that was very sucessful. I have a hard time believing they couldn't have adapted this into an animated film. It had great music by Elton John and Tim Rice and all they had to do was put the cast into a recording studio to do the voices.

Anyways, that's my rant for the day. Damn you, Disney, for making me wait until I'm 25 to see a Disney princess that looks like me. The damage has been done. I'm sending you the therapy bills.

The Weekend...I thought this was supposed to be time off

I can't say I was really looking forward to the weekend. Mostly, because I knew it would be packed (as always) with things that I HAVE to do. But this weekend turned out to be too short (also...as always) and I won't lie, I had a little fun.

Saturday was the editing workshop at Girls Write Now, which surprisingly took a lot of planning. The day started off a little rough, because I got lost walking around the CUNY Grad Center, which was where the workshop was held and ended up being 15 minutes late.

I'm sure some of you are wondering what GWN is. Well, let me explain. It's a nonprofit that pairs aspiring teenage writers with professional women who have a writing background. We help them work on their writing and develop a relationship with them to encourage them to be college-bound. It's all kinds of awesome. My mentee, whose name will never,ever appear on this blog (cause she's a minor and all) is soooooo inspiring. She's talented and smart and really, really down-to-earth. She's also funny, which is great because we both laugh at similar types of things.

So the workshop started off with what GWN calls an ice breaker...Which was my job. We had the girls describe their biggest critic on paper and then destroy them! They seemed to enjoy that. After all, you can't really talk about editing without talking about the good and the bad. We all have critics who tells us we suck...When we actually don't. The rest of the workshop went well. We had a great panel with speakers from Seventeen, Jezebel (best. blog. ever.) and Youth Media Reporter. They talked about editing and self-editing. I hope the girls enjoyed it.

But boy was I tired when it was over! I passed out on the subway, which was fine, since it ended up taking an hour and half to get home.

Then I came home and attempted to write about racial economic disparities. That didn't go so well. I was a little tired by then.

To further procrastinate I watched Cloverfield. I give it two thumps up. Not terrible but not great either.

Sunday was more low-key, as in did not include 50 teenager girls. I met with my policy group, which is seriously becoming my second family. They're cool people and we worked on our Power Point Presentation. One of my colleagues volunteered to drive me home so I ended up not having to worry about the Q and its silly weekend schedule changes or the F and the weird police activity at 42 Street.

Then I watched the Oscars. Yay for Kate Winslet. You had me at Sense and Sensibility (one of the best adaptations ever).

I also managed to get some work done and continue to write my racial economic disparities paper, which by the way, is soooo complicated...

Am I ready to start the week? Nah. But at least I have something to show for the weekend. A presentation, an awesome workshop, a half-written paper and a half-written grant proposal.

Tomorrow's goals: finish proposal and paper. I'll let you know how that goes.

Hey, people.

Hello there. Long time, eh?

So yeah, I'm trying this blogging thing again.

For those of you who don't know...I used to use livejournal. And then bad things happened. People took things out of context. People called and yelled at me. I had shut off my cell for like a week. So here's my disclaimer: I will try to blog as often as I can. If you don't like what you read, get over it and get over yourself. Leave a comment. Send me an email. Do what you gotta do. But don't blow up my cell phone over some crap. And don't get mad because you read something on the Web first. I have a lot of friends. I can't call everyone every time there's a development in my life. So that's what this is for.

Now that we got that piece of business out of the way...

If you're wondering about the name of the blog, it's the title (and first line) of an Emily Dickinson poem. One of my favorite poems...But I digress...

I'll try to use this space for a few things: 1) general updates about my life (yes, some will assuredly be angsty but hopefully some will be fun too) 2) random rants on many topics including (but not restricted to) men, women, children, the government, business, the fact that I'm broke, the economy, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Sarah Palin (hopefully not), capitalism, socialism, hipsters, vermin and the New School. 3) Do-gooder stuff like charity events...cause that's how I roll.