love #1

We choose mates because they like the same nouns we do — Mos Def, chocolate, Buddy Glass, dogs, politics.  Instead, we should choose mates because they like the same verbs — or, more importantly, because we employ the same verbs in the first-person singular, and now the first-person plural.  Intimacy is created not by shared desires, but by shared activity.  Life includes plenty of nouns, but is composed of verbs.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

“Just ’cause some cute girl likes the same bizarro crap you do, doesn’t make her your soulmate.”

– (5oo) Days of Summer

Feminism is Necessary: Brief(-ish), Real-Life Edition

I proudly display “Feminism” as my Political Views on Facebook both because I am a staunch feminist and because feminism gets a bad rap.  I assume that people who look at my Facebook usually have positive regard for me, and I display my political affiliation hoping that once they realize they know and like a feminist, they might eventually come around to realizing they like feminism, as well.

Anyway, this weekend is the perfect illustration of why feminism is absolutely necessary.

I love my boyfriend; really, I do.  We have lived together for over a year, and it’s generally a pleasant experience.  Politically speaking, he happens to have been raised by two fairly liberal professors, his mother self-identifies as feminist, and I assume his father probably does, as well.

Despite the fact that said boyfriend probably has good intentions, there are gaping gender work disparities in our partnership.

Yesterday, I woke up; made both of us eggs benedict (sans hollandaise, thank God, although I suppose that’s technically not eggs benedict); went to work for three hours; drove home to pick up his laundry (I’d done mine on Friday); drove to visit my mom at the hospital and stayed there for a little over an hour; drove to her house to do his laundry; took my dog on a two-mile walk; attempted, and failed, to finish said laundry; picked up the boyfriend at BART; went out to dinner; dragged him to the hospital to visit my mom.  Yesterday, he walked to Temescal to watch football, walked back home and checked his email, walked to his friend’s house (halfway between here and BART); then took BART to meet me in Lafayette.

Today, I woke up; did not eat breakfast — it’s for losers; went to work; went to the hospital; dealt with getting her released; drove her around to pharmacies, grocery stores, etc., and then home; continued my laundry; drove home; did the dishes I didn’t finish on Friday, due to a lack of drying space; found more stinky Brooks Brothers shirts; gathered the clean clothes he’d dumped all over the floor, and hung them up in the closet; and eventually will go pick him up from BART.  Today, he went to the City to watch football, and is still there.

I describe my weekend not to claim your pity — save it for your mom, or your sister, or your girlfriend, or yourself.  Instead, I want to illustrate that, despite the facts that:

a) my boyfriend is fairly feminist, and I don’t think he even balks at the label;

b) my salary is twice my boyfriend’s;

c) my “official,” career work week is three times the size of my boyfriend’s; and

d) I am recently 23 years old,

there is still a ridiculous work disparity at play here.

Now, strict economists would argue that I have a deliberate choice in all of this: I could CHOOSE to live in a sty, and put up with stinky clothes, and an unsanitary kitchen, and a disgusting carpet; I could choose to find a better-paying job; I could choose to work fewer hours; I could choose a different boyfriend.

However, this argument ignores the situation’s realities: all of that is highly undesirable, to both my partner and me.  Again, you could argue that all this is my choice — and, of course, literally, it is; that said, life just doesn’t work that way.

Feminism is necessary because my boyfriend, no matter how accidentally, does not feel compelled to take care of our home, and because I am compelled.  Feminism is necessary because we don’t value domestic, private, unseen work as we do paid, public work, despite the fact that both types are absolutely expected in our society.  Feminism is necessary.

California: I love you, but stop

In his last State of the State speech, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed that California amend its Constitution to mandate that the CSU and UC receive at least 10% of the state’s budget, beginning 2014-2015.

1. Who thinks he proposed a Constitutional amendment instead of just a law because it’s just so much easier to get done???

Oh California, you’re so dumb.

2. While I agree with his intent, establishing arbitrary numerical budgetary (you try adding more adjectives) minimums or maximums always makes me queasy. Sure, everything sounds great now, but who knows what our situation will be in the future? I’d hate for us to be tied to yet another law/budget that may or may not make sense every year.

Think it out, fools. Setting arbitrary funding percentages could inspire public universities to be less efficient, and encourages future politicians to pass the buck and blame others for their policy mistakes. The only person guaranteed to profit from this proposed amendment is Governor Schwarzenegger.

Dear University of California: Hike away!

You’ll hate me for this, but…

The University of California should, in fact, raise undergraduate tuition.

The University of California is recognized as the top public university system in the world.  Cal, UCLA, UCSD, UCSB, and UC Davis are all world leaders in their respective specialties (UCSB has a great marine bio department, and Davis for agricultural science), and Riverside, Irvine, Santa Cruz, and Merced all have more stringent admissions standards than the vast majority of American colleges and universities.  If you care about this sort of thing, in US News and Reports’s 2010 Public University rankings, the UC takes the first, second, seventh, TWO eleventh (Davis and UCSB tie), fourteenth, twenty-ninth, forth-third spots.  To be  clear: 1, 2, 7, 11, 11, 14, 29, 43.  (Only Merced isn’t on the list, but considering it only opened a couple of years ago, I’m not terribly offended.)

Again, using those silly rankings, if you want to compare the UCs to all universities, public and private, Cal ranks 21st, UCLA 24th, UCSD 35th, Davis and UCSB 42nd, Irvine 46th, UCSC 71st, and Riverside 96th.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I find those rankings fairly useless when it comes to marking actual institutional and educational quality, but maybe that’s just because my alma mater’s knocked all the way down to #35, after U$C, which all righteous Northern Californians despise.)

Each year, the most competitive UCs maintain ridiculously low admission rates, both because they’re great institutions and because its tuition really is far below market rates.  The University of California has thousands of students whose families can afford its full tuition.  Some of these students choose the UC because it’s a bargain; others, because these schools really are their first choice.

California has two public university systems — the UC and the CSU — and, unfortunately, most of the poor who do make it to a four-year college will go to a CSU, not to a UC.  The UCs’ student composition is dominated by the upper- and upper-middle-class.  While a huge chunk of its students receive financial aid, at least a third of the UC’s students absolutely do not need it.

This year, the average UC tuition was $8720; next year, it will go up $1334, to $10,054.  While this is a big jump, percentage-wise, I’d advocate raising tuition to at least $20,000.  Yes, that makes you grumpy, but consider, mostly crappier, California universities:

2009-2010 Tuition at very- to semi-competitive private California Universities/Colleges (JUST classes — this doesn’t count housing, food, student fees, textbooks, etc.)

U$C: $38,570
Stanford: $37,380
University of San Diego (Catholic): $35,870
Loyola Marymount University (Catholic): $34,730
Santa Clara University (Catholic): $36,000
Pepperdine University (Christian): $34,580
CalTech: $31,437

UC tuition is far below market rates, and California taxpayers are effectively subsidizing the cost of higher education for tens of thousands of students and families who DO NOT NEED THE SUBSIDY.  We could raise tuition at least another $10,000, and maybe even $15,000 or $20,000, before strong students would seriously consider attending LMU or Pepperdine over UCLA or UCSB.

The UC should increase its tuition to at least $20,000.  These increases could help fund university necessities like attracting top faculty and research.  It also would keep the UC a comparative bargain, about $15,000 less than most of the universities described above.

As a student who was only able to attend UCSD on financial aid, I understand those who cry that fee hikes penalize the poor.  That said, I personally can testify to the University of California’s generosity.  Thanks to need-based grants, loans, and scholarships, my out-of-pocket cost was between $0 and $3000 each year.  Raising tuition wouldn’t penalize us scholarship students; instead, it would allow for even more money to be diverted to financial aid (hopefully in the form of UC grants, not federal loans).

Another potential perk: too many rich frat boys (boys especially, but some women, too) go all Van Wilder and spend too much time in school, not because they couldn’t get into their classes, but because they don’t feel like sucking it up and graduating.  Raising the tuition would incentivize these students (or at least their parents) into graduating sooner, which would waste less of the state’s money, free up seats for those who need the classes (especially because these super-super seniors get to pick classes first, based on their advanced unit standing), and, again, if you care about these things, help the UC in the rankings when it comes to “average time to completion.”

(One caveat: I strongly advocate not raising graduate student fees by anywhere near a similar margin.  Attracting great grad students and faculty are absolutely essential for maintaining our top research programs, which, by extension, lift up the undergraduate programs.  Besides, they make up such a small chunk of the student population, a significant fee hike would only discourage them from coming to California while having a negligible impact on our coffers.)

In conclusion, the UC tuition is far below market rates.  This artificially low tuition benefits the upper-middle and upper classes much more than it does the middle and working classes, since a) the latter has a hard time getting into the UC anyway and b) we could raise tuition by at least $10k and still be significantly less expensive than crappier California universities.  The UC should take a stand by dramatically increasing student fees, and should NOT apologize for it.

Raising fees to $20,000 would ensure better faculty salaries, which will attract better research and graduate students.  Furthermore, it would help us move to a Harvard-esque model of helping the poorest get a greater percentage of aid in the form of grants, instead of loans.  It’s a win-freaking-win.

Hey NYT: Stop infantilizing women

The lead in a NYT Style article reads:

“Four teenage girls and two men suspected of stealing jewelry and clothing…”

A few paragraphs later, it describes the suspects  more thoroughly:

“The six who have been charged are Nicholas Prugo, 19; Diana Tamayo, 19; Courtney Ames, 19; Ms. Neiers, 18; Roy Lopez Jr., 27, a bouncer; and Jonathan Ajar, 28.”

First of all, NYT, learn to count: you just listed three men and three women.  SECOND, and even more importantly, all three females were 18 or older, so why are you calling them “teenage girls” and the males “men?”  That is really careless, obvious, and dumb sexism.

Come on, New York Times. I expect better of you.

 

Keep your Shirt!

More random career advice:

To minimize your dry cleaning bill, wear shirts with sleeves underneath jackets and sweaters. Men have been saving their dress shirts forever with undershirts, but of COURSE women’s undershirts usually are camisoles and have no armpit protection.

I’m a big fan of J. Crew’s Perfect Tees, two of which I got on clearance (in seafoam and navy) for $6.99 each a couple of weeks ago. Score!

Random, sure…but I wish someone had given me this advice instead of me figuring it out myself, hundreds of dollars of cleaning bills later! My mother saying “Why do you buy dry clean only clothes??? That’s so stupid!” doesn’t really count.

Don’t let your worlds collide!

Strangely enough, my single most popular post on this blog has been career-oriented, and has about half of my site’s lifetime hits.

This brings me to today’s very straightforward topic…

SOCIAL NETWORKS!

Keep them separate.

That’s about it.

Long story short: I’ve had Facebook since 2004, added my boss and some other higher-ups a while after I got my salaried position, and then unfriended them six months later.

Why? Because there’s absolutely no need for me to be “friends” with them on a social site.

First, and most importantly, being Facebook friends with my boss forced me to continually worry about what I put on my site. If I was annoyed with work, I couldn’t put it in my status. If I friended one co-worker, I probably had to friend them all. Even how I described my job may or may not be eyebrow-raising to a superior. So, why worry about it at all? Delete!

Second of all, I see my coworkers at least five days a week, and usually more often. What the hell do we need to be cyberfriends for?

THE PRESCRIPTION: We now have work-based networks like LinkedIn. Keep different accounts for your “social” social networks and “work” social networks, so you don’t need to continually worry about which privacy settings are for whom, or, worse, you DON’T worry about it and end up making a major CLM (career-limiting move).

In the end, if you’re that obsessed with Facebook friending your boss, you’re probably not mature or socially savvy enough to move up the corporate ladder, anyway.

Some financial penalties make so little sense it’s ALMOST hilarious

This one time…

1. I overdrafted my checking account on $3.50 at Taco Bell and was hit with a $32 fee from BofA. That’s right, a taco and a burrito cost me $35. Thanks, Bank.

2. I got a $20 ticket for driving Nick’s car with expired registration. At the time, I had already paid $1300 to renew his registration, but we were in arbitration with Fastrak, which claimed we owed them another $2000 in missed tolls (uh, no). By the time this dispute was resolved — in our favor — five months had elapsed, which meant the deadline for fixing the registration was lapsed. This meant my $20 ticket went up to $3000, with expected monthly payments of $400. I can’t afford these payments. If I don’t make them, my license will get revoked. If my license gets revoked, I can’t get to work (legally). If I can’t get to work, I lose my job. If I lose my job, I have even less money.

To sum up this Kafka-esque Catch-22: if you have slightly too little money, you get slapped with a 1000% increase in your fee, and if you now can’t pay that fee, you lose your ability to keep your job, which means…how does the state get its money now?????

Doesn’t make too much sense, eh? If, at the end of the day, the state wants to penalize irresponsibility, fine, I’m down with that. However, if the reason why someone can’t pay something is because she doesn’t have the money, how does it make any sense to up the cost 1000%?

In a similar note:
1. Bob spends too much on his credit card
2. Bob tries to pay it off
3. Bob runs a balance each month
4. Bob loses his job and can pay less on his balance each month
5. Because Bob is keeping a higher balance, his credit score goes down
5. Because Bob’s credit score decreases, his interest rate INCREASES
6. Bob’s balance increases MORE
7. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I have a full-time, salaried job (40-65 hours/week) with benefits and am the best in the state within my company. I have now taken on a second job to supplement this salary. All I know is that I spend less than 15% of my income on eating out, clothes, toiletries, whatever — that leaves 85% for debts, rent, food, utilities, and gas. If I can’t make it, how the hell could anyone else who has a modicum of debt?
At the end of the day, the poorest 10% in America pay 90% of America’s overdraft fees.  (True, not hyperbole.)  Fuck you, banks!

Seafood Week at the Estate

Monday: Oyster, Potato, and Leek Chowder

Tuesday: Calamari in a garlic white wine sauce with roasted red pepper on lemon-pepper papardelle

Thursday: Steamed mussels with chardonnay, tomatoes, and garlic

Saturday: New England Clam Chowder

YAYYYYYYYYYYYY 99 Ranch’s frozen seafood selection!!!

Brief, General News Analysis

As you’ve probably heard by now, a female grad student at Yale disappeared last week and was found dead a couple of days ago. Today the medical examiner announced the cause of death was asphyxiation.

This story is freaky as hell and very sad. It also makes the perfect news story, but I’m not so cynical as to waste time today reminding us all why this disappearance and murder were considered so much more “newsworthy” than the dozens that occur each day in this country.

What I do what to comment on is this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/nyregion/17yale.html?_r=1&hp

Although the police have not charged anyone with a crime yet, and claim to have multiple persons of interest they need to talk to still, this fairly lengthy-for-a-news-update article makes clear that the reporter thinks Raymond Clark III, a lab tech, killed Ms. Le. It spends multiple paragraphs dissecting him and the so-far-barely-circumstansial evidence that damns him.  They even published an ominous picture of the stairs up to his apartment!

For all I know, this guy totally did it. That said, he hasn’t even been charged yet, so although I understand the reporter wants to scoop this story, I often wonder what happens to all those who are accused in the media but actually didn’t commit a crime.

Think about it: let’s say this guy had nothing to do with Ms. Le’s murder. However, he’s now all over the national and international news, as well as the internet, as a suspected brutal killer. Moreover, again, thanks to the internet, even if the New York Times fixates on a new loner guy tomorrow, if you google Mr. Carver for the next few years (at LEAST), he’s still going to look like a murderer.

The American judicial system has the philosophy of “innocent until proven guilty,” but the media often spins things the other way around.  Even if Mr. Carver never faces any legal repercussions, in the last four hours, his life has already changed irrevocably, and his reputation is ruined.  I feel weird saying this, but I hope he’s actually the murderer — if not, we just scapegoated an innocent man and left him to rot, just so one reporter could potentially advance in the crime news world.