Okay, so how often do you floss? Once a week? Twice a week? Once a month? Right before you see your dentist?
I've been thinking a lot about floss lately (mostly cuz my dentist said "FLOSS DAILY" and so I have been). And what comes to mind is my in-law's thing of floss they have.
Yeah, maybe that's a weird thing to think about, but here's why.
It says Fedco on it.
Yes, Fedco.
It was also 1000 yards long when they bought it.
I've often thought that that was weird and kinda gross. Like they hadn't used enough floss over how many years since Fedco went out of business.
But today I changed my thought process.
I took off some floss from my container and measured it before I used it. It was 9 inches long, which is probably a little short. Let's assume that an average piece of floss is 1 foot or 12 inches long.
1000 yards is 3000 feet.
If you flossed every day, that container of floss would last you 8 years.
If you flossed once a week, that container of floss would last you 57 years.
If you flossed just before you went to the dentist (i.e. 3 times every six months), that container of floss would last you 500 years.
I think that's insane! But now I wonder about my Dad (Happy Birthday Dad!!) and why he buys so much floss. Maybe he didn't get in on the Fedco deal of the century.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Emperor's New Groove
It was interesting. Fun, silly. Not any problems that I could see from a feminist perspective. The he main woman was the bad guy, but that happens sometimes. What I thought was interesting was that Cronk and Pacha were both large fellows, much like their voices Patrick Waburton and John Goodman and Kuzco and Isma were both smaller people, much like their voices David Spade and Eartha Kitt.
While the skin color was a good thing (if made in the 50s, I'm sure all of the character's skin color would have been white), I feel like maybe they could have made it darker.
On the other hand, this is the first Disney movie to showcase one type of character. Can you guess what it is?
Think
Think
Think
Think
Give up Pooh Bear?
It's a pregnant woman. Pacha's wife is pregnant and makes mention of that a few times. She's also brilliant, quick witted and beautiful. What a wonderful woman to showcase in the movie.
While the skin color was a good thing (if made in the 50s, I'm sure all of the character's skin color would have been white), I feel like maybe they could have made it darker.
On the other hand, this is the first Disney movie to showcase one type of character. Can you guess what it is?
Think
Think
Think
Think
Give up Pooh Bear?
It's a pregnant woman. Pacha's wife is pregnant and makes mention of that a few times. She's also brilliant, quick witted and beautiful. What a wonderful woman to showcase in the movie.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
#100
I think I FINALLY found what #100 should be!
First of all, read this and then come back to my post.
And no, this is not going to be an "I hate Republicans" post. Shouldn't you know me better than that?
Okay, whether or not Meghan McCain meant to advertise her, um, assets, to the world, I could care less. Whether or not her apology is meaningful, heartfelt or even allows her to give a damn makes no difference to me.
What I want to focus on is her words.
I think it's very important to focus on how we use our words and what the focal point of our words are, what words are there that don't need to be, etc. For example, there is a story about Avril Lavigne's divorce. The story said (and now I can't find it anymore) "punk rocker chick Avril Lavigne..." Why did we need to say that she was a chick? Why can't she just be "punk rocker Avril Lavigne"? What is the purpose of the extra words?
And I know that not everyone likes or wants to speak the PC way (some might even call that nanny-ing), but for some things, I think we need to change our perspective.
Going back to Ms. McCain's statement. Her statement means that, apparently, she is not allowed to be a person, a human being, to be in PJs, to take silly photos. And I sympathize with her. I really do. But I have to say, when I saw that photo, all I could think of was "wow, do you really not have a brain in your head? The tabloids/pundits are going to eat you alive!" What did she think was going to happen? If her phone just sent the photo before she had a chance to review it, fine. But instead, she okayed the photo and then posted it. For the world to see. If she had a private twitter where no one else could see it, fine, do whatever you want. But if you're going to be in the public life, then yes, you do not get to be a normal person. You don't get to be in your PJs; you don't get to take silly photos (who remembers the Miley Cyrus incident where she and her friends made "silly faces" aka stereotypical "Asian eyes"?); you don't get to be ill-dressed (thank you TMZ & PerezHilton), bad make-uped, blurry-eyed, club too late, eat too much or drive too fast. You can't do whatever you want.
Okay, that's over. Sorry, I didn't expect to get so passionate about that.
Back to her statement. "apparently anything other than a pantsuit, I am a slut" The term slut has always meant someone who is promiscuous or slovenly, two things I don't necessarily think go hand in hand. Her statement is obviously a bad one, for I'm sure she has been photographed in many other things rather than a pantsuit and no one has made said insinuations. But I don't think her statement is wrong. I am appalled at our society - it makes women feel bad for wearing low tank tops, comfy clothes and things that make them feel good. When men want to feel good, they either go to the gym, put on something nice looking (aka a suit or a tuxedo) or something else (I dunno, I'm not a man, so I couldn't come up with a third thing). But if a woman wants to feel good and dress well, she puts on makeup (not too much, she'll look like a harlot), does her hair (don't make it too firm, she'll look like she expects it to get messed up) and maybe a nice dress (not too short, or she's asking for it) or jeans (not too tight, you know what that means) and a top (nothing too revealing or there's no point in even going for it).
Why does fashion dictate these things? And why aren't men subject to the same criticism and problems that women are? If Joe Biden's son (sorry, I tried to find someone who could be in the public eye in the same category as Meghan McCain and I felt like he was the best choice) took a photo of himself in low sweats, no top and defined abs, the world would say "wow, he takes care of himself" or "wow, he looks great" or something else to that effect. No one would say "oh my goodness! What a publicity stunt! He must be asking for trouble" or "what a man-whore." Those words wouldn't even enter into our vocabulary! And yet they do for Ms. McCain!
We need to spend a lot more time figuring out why we do what we do, why we say what we say and the point of it all. If we say things to women like "ugh, what a slut" or "could you BE any more obvious," if we assume that single women are out to "steal" our men, if we put down other women to build ourselves up, that's not feminism or humanism or any other positive-ism. That's just mean girl syndrome. And it needs to stop.
First of all, read this and then come back to my post.
And no, this is not going to be an "I hate Republicans" post. Shouldn't you know me better than that?
Okay, whether or not Meghan McCain meant to advertise her, um, assets, to the world, I could care less. Whether or not her apology is meaningful, heartfelt or even allows her to give a damn makes no difference to me.
What I want to focus on is her words.
"apparently anything other than a pantsuit, I am a slut"I teach 8th grade at my Temple and on the first day, I made a point about language. I mentioned the difference between Ms., Miss and Mrs. versus Mr. I pointed out how we use language, especially between men and women. Without Jessica Valenti's He's a Stud, She's a Slut, that would not have been possible.
I think it's very important to focus on how we use our words and what the focal point of our words are, what words are there that don't need to be, etc. For example, there is a story about Avril Lavigne's divorce. The story said (and now I can't find it anymore) "punk rocker chick Avril Lavigne..." Why did we need to say that she was a chick? Why can't she just be "punk rocker Avril Lavigne"? What is the purpose of the extra words?
And I know that not everyone likes or wants to speak the PC way (some might even call that nanny-ing), but for some things, I think we need to change our perspective.
Going back to Ms. McCain's statement. Her statement means that, apparently, she is not allowed to be a person, a human being, to be in PJs, to take silly photos. And I sympathize with her. I really do. But I have to say, when I saw that photo, all I could think of was "wow, do you really not have a brain in your head? The tabloids/pundits are going to eat you alive!" What did she think was going to happen? If her phone just sent the photo before she had a chance to review it, fine. But instead, she okayed the photo and then posted it. For the world to see. If she had a private twitter where no one else could see it, fine, do whatever you want. But if you're going to be in the public life, then yes, you do not get to be a normal person. You don't get to be in your PJs; you don't get to take silly photos (who remembers the Miley Cyrus incident where she and her friends made "silly faces" aka stereotypical "Asian eyes"?); you don't get to be ill-dressed (thank you TMZ & PerezHilton), bad make-uped, blurry-eyed, club too late, eat too much or drive too fast. You can't do whatever you want.
Okay, that's over. Sorry, I didn't expect to get so passionate about that.
Back to her statement. "apparently anything other than a pantsuit, I am a slut" The term slut has always meant someone who is promiscuous or slovenly, two things I don't necessarily think go hand in hand. Her statement is obviously a bad one, for I'm sure she has been photographed in many other things rather than a pantsuit and no one has made said insinuations. But I don't think her statement is wrong. I am appalled at our society - it makes women feel bad for wearing low tank tops, comfy clothes and things that make them feel good. When men want to feel good, they either go to the gym, put on something nice looking (aka a suit or a tuxedo) or something else (I dunno, I'm not a man, so I couldn't come up with a third thing). But if a woman wants to feel good and dress well, she puts on makeup (not too much, she'll look like a harlot), does her hair (don't make it too firm, she'll look like she expects it to get messed up) and maybe a nice dress (not too short, or she's asking for it) or jeans (not too tight, you know what that means) and a top (nothing too revealing or there's no point in even going for it).
Why does fashion dictate these things? And why aren't men subject to the same criticism and problems that women are? If Joe Biden's son (sorry, I tried to find someone who could be in the public eye in the same category as Meghan McCain and I felt like he was the best choice) took a photo of himself in low sweats, no top and defined abs, the world would say "wow, he takes care of himself" or "wow, he looks great" or something else to that effect. No one would say "oh my goodness! What a publicity stunt! He must be asking for trouble" or "what a man-whore." Those words wouldn't even enter into our vocabulary! And yet they do for Ms. McCain!
We need to spend a lot more time figuring out why we do what we do, why we say what we say and the point of it all. If we say things to women like "ugh, what a slut" or "could you BE any more obvious," if we assume that single women are out to "steal" our men, if we put down other women to build ourselves up, that's not feminism or humanism or any other positive-ism. That's just mean girl syndrome. And it needs to stop.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)