Not unless a lot of new people became black overnight.
Un zeste de citron?
Charlotte et Serge, je vous aime, mais . . .
I'm sure glad our country is past that sort of thing.
Now, now I'm sure he just meant Obama was young. Why do you hate the youth, ogged?
It's good we're getting all this stuff on the surface, so we can have a frank national dialogue on what a racist piece of shit that congressman is.
Though "They call me Mister Obama" would be a satisfying, if cliched, retort.
Hammer the Congressman. Apart from (!) the racism thing, there are real national security implications if unfriendly governments think they have sense of Obama's decision-making process.
I have no clue what to make of the most recent ARG poll. But I wonder if the Clintons' decision to flog the Wright controversy and "clinging bitters" has made a larger slice of the electorate question if Obama "shares their values" (I can't find numbers). If that's the case, Tim's 2 is certainly right: people won't identify with Obama, as many people did with Clinton when she was being attacked on the way to New Hampshire, and so won't defend him with their vote.
Won't have much effect besides his own career. Good times, nonetheless.
It will be funny when that guy has to call Obama "Mr. President."
You know what's going to happen in Pennsylvania? It'll be essentially a tie.
You know what's going to happen at the convention? Obama will have a 150-200 delegate lead counting everybody but unaffiliated superdelegates.
Now, there's about a 90% chance those superdelegates will then decide he represents the will of the people.
Unless, of course, everybody keeps on talking about manufactured bullshit like the "bitter" controversy and the superdelegates decide -- if everybody's so fucking fascinated -- it'll hurt him enough in the general that they can't support him.
So by all means, go on ahead talking about it.
8: Yeah, I agree. "Highly classified" national security simulation? Congressman mouthing off about what anyone did or didn't do in that simulation? Doesn't highly classified mean he's not supposed to talk about it -- even if he's over the top respectful?
After our national dialogue about the need for one or more national dialogues about racism, sexism, the Second Amendment, religion, congestion pricing and cardiac stents, will there be refreshments?
14: At the very least, I sincerely hope this means that the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky will not be invited to anymore highly classified national security simulations.
Obama was never going to win Kentucky anyway.
ARG polls are bullshit, IIRC. Follow what SurveyUSA says -- they've been doing well this year.
18: Survey USA has, IIRC, numbers in line with the ARG poll.
Mr. Davis' portrait looks like it's been through some kind of distorting photoshop filter.
How old is Davis? He looks pretty young.
I'm sure he just meant Obama was young.
Of course. Because Obama were old and wizened, he would qualify to be called "Uncle Barack".
I'm not following 13. If I read you right here, Jetpack, you're saying that talking about these things on Unfogged might make a difference come convention time? That the conversation on Unfogged becomes part of the ambient noise that is the political discourse, and then, somehow, the superdelegates will decide, based on that noise, either to or not to overturn the will of the primary- and caucus-goers?
"clinging bitters"
Is this an item from w-lfs-n's shopping list?
Alack, I am stricken with the clinging bitters!
28: I have that effect on people. My bitterness lingers, it might even be said to cling to passers-by.
Thinking Plague wrote a song about Ari.
25: We at Unfogged need to act responsibly, never forgetting the enormous impact our words sometimes have on public opinion. We should never speculate irresponsibly. For example, we should never speculate about feeding Karl Rove to a hog and then selling the Rove-fattened pork at $100 a pound, because that might persuade Rove to "take of the gloves" and abandon his previous "Mr. Nice Guy" approach.
31 is crazy talk. Since when does tainted pork fetch a premium at market?
13 is more or less the same as when it was being argued that we the commentariat had a duty to not say anything bad, anything at all, about Ahmadinejad lest we contribute in some way to the beating of the war drum. I am too lazy to look for the thread. But I thought it was silly then too.
And would it kill you to call her Clinton, ogged? In a post where you write Obama in the same sentence?
Since when does tainted pork fetch a premium at market?
You just don't understand gentiles, Ari.
I would never eat Rove-fattened pork, but I might buy some as a souvenir.
After our national dialogue about the need for one or more national dialogues about racism, sexism, the Second Amendment, religion, congestion pricing and cardiac stents, will there be refreshments?
We should have a discussion about that.
And would it kill you to call her Clinton, ogged? In a post where you write Obama in the same sentence?
We've been over this on the site. Who does it say is running for president?
I would be interested in trying the fennel-fattened pork of the Channel Islands.
I think if all the candidate's signage and buttons etc say "Hillary" it's not so terrible to use it in an informal setting such as this.
I don't doubt we've been over it. But surely in that discussion the point was made that even though she made what was a practical decision in the realm of self-promotion and the general electorate, that doesn't mean it doesn't have *implications.* And that when in one sentence he is called Obama and she is called Hillary, work is being done.
We should have a discussion about that.
Unless the slushees are of the Mint julep variety, I suggest that we leave them in the youthful nostalgia of the previous thread, and have appropriate adult beverages for refreshment after the national dialogue.
However, with so many voices, would such a discussion still be a dialogue, or a polylogue?
Since when does tainted pork fetch a premium at market?
One man's taint is another man's delicacy.
pwned by his nibs.
Actually, ogged is a knob.
Clinton chose to market herself as "Hillary." I'm not calling her that, because I don't know her and she's not my friend and I'm not going to treat any member of the ruling class like they are. But I can't get too worked up about other people calling her by her first name when she's explicitly campaigning under her first name.
And that when in one sentence he is called Obama and she is called Hillary, work is being done.
I'm sure that's right, but it would probably strike me with more force if I didn't have to constantly check with myself as to whether "Obama" was his first name or his last name.
For a while I was making a point of calling the two main Democratic Presidential candidates "Sen. [Lastname]," at least in writing. I continue to think that's the best policy, though difficult to stick to in everyday speech. Barry and Hillary are also fine, of course.
18: SUSA's poll from 4/5 to 4/7 did have very similar (one point tighter) results to the ARG one. But the polling average has shown a sharply narrowing difference.
46: Just refer to him as "boy." Problem solved!
work is being done
Ok, I admit enjoying having license to call her Hillary. Better than "that phony old crone," surely. But what would the feminazitariat prefer that I call her? So it shall be.
feeding Karl Rove to a hog
...would be a horrible thing to do to a hog.
I can't speak for the collective, but I prefer Clinton. Most especially I prefer Clinton in a sentence that is musing about the significant cultural work sexist language can be made to do.
And i glossed right over your feminazi bullshit, you shithead.
50: Surely better than feeding the hog to Karl Rove, no?
I can't speak for the collective, but I prefer Clinton.
Object lesson in the importance of the use/mention distinction.
I prefer Clinton
The problem with this is that there are two Clintons in the news these days (in this case it would have been clear, but it won't always be).
What I meant to say in 47, besides the things I said, was, has anyone successfully taught themselves the flamed orange peel trick for cocktail making? A friend of mine used it for making something like a Sazerac the other weekend, and I've seen a bartender do it once, but so far I can't get it, and I'm probably going to spend far too much time trying until I get it right.
The problem with this is that there are two Clintons in the news these days (in this case it would have been clear, but it won't always be).
"Senator Clinton" and "President Clinton."
"Senator Clinton" and "President Clinton."
Meh, I'm not going to use their titles/honorifics.
"that phony old crone,"
Here again, there's an argument to be made that such is how she's chosen to market herself.
"Senator Clinton" and "President Clinton."
Too formal; nobody talks casually like that. "HRC" seems fine to me.
has anyone successfully taught themselves the flamed orange peel trick for cocktail making?
I dunno, but Belle L. and I saw a bartender do it on Thursday, and it was pretty sweet. One thing he did that I've never thought to do before was hold the flame around the slightly bent orange peel to warm up the oil before moving the match out a bit and bending the peel more to spray the oil out.
Having reasonably fresh oranges is probably important, too.
So, ogged. HRC gets to be Senator Clinton, but BHO is just Obama?
Why don't you just call him "Boy," you racist.
56.http://www.kingcocktail.com/BevMedia-May.htm
The problem with this is that there are two Clintons in the news these days (in this case it would have been clear, but it won't always be).
Yes, there's the monster and the liar. But sometimes the liar's lies are monstrous. And sometimes the monster lies. Hmm, you're right, this is a problem.
Hillary's bumper stickers say "Hillary". I therefore infer, and not for the first time, that she must be sexist.
the titles can be sort of onerous, i guess, but in the vast majority of instances there would be no confusion as to who was being discussed. and it could be remedied w/out invocation of titles. and more to the point, in this particular instance, it is especially tone deaf to pretend it makes no difference
when she's explicitly campaigning under her first name.
One often uses her first name to make clear that one isn't talking about her husband. Me, I prefer to call her "that monster."
I'm not going to use their titles/honorifics.
I have managed to talk politics and current events for the last seven years without once saying "President Bush." Just can't bring myself.
No one is pretending it makes no difference.
this one even has video
http://www.ciaprochef.com/sunkist/06_beyond_juice.html
From my old pals at Sunkist
Pwned severally, but whatever. Monster, monster, Hillary, monster.
For a while I was making a point of calling the two main Democratic Presidential candidates "Sen. [Lastname]," at least in writing.
This grates on me, for the same reason it always grates on me when people insist on referring to Bush as "President Bush." The title isn't grafted on. They aren't special and magical holy people, and I shouldn't have to talk about them like they are or address them in a way I wouldn't address any other civil servant. I don't salute the mailman or refer to him as "Mailman Smith" or "Mr. Mailman." I don't confer special titles or forms of address on public school teachers or sewer workers. And while I'm perfectly aware that the royalization and feudalization of the United States was well under way before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence, I would like to maintain at least the ceremonial pretense that we live in a society where our elected officials are subject to the same rules as everybody else.
I don't salute the mailman or refer to him as "Mailman Smith"
But now that you realize that it would be totally awesome, you will, right?
But now that you realize that it would be totally awesome, you will, right?
Sounds a little totalitarian, or possibly Rotarian, Blogger Ogged.
71: I was delighted when I came across the Whitman line* that, while a European head of state walking down the street has hoi polloi lifting their hats to him, in America the President liftys his hat to the people. One of the small things that has infuriated me about Bush from Day One is how clear it is that he doesn't think that that's how America is, or should be. Anti-American fuck.
* Which bears no textual semblance to my paraphrase, only conceptual
The title isn't grafted on.
But since it's just a title and not necessarily an honorific, and it clarifies to whom one is referring, why wouldn't one use it?
I don't salute the mailman or refer to him as "Mailman Smith"
I gather that in China it is customary to talk this way. I know if seen a lot of references to people like "Teacher Liu" or whatever.
And Blogger Ogged is right to say that this way of talking is awesome.
"HRC" seems fine to me.
The initial thing irritates me. FDR gets called by his initials; so does JFK and LBJ. The first time someone used "BHO" I did a double-take, and then I was like, what, you couldn't have spared the extra fraction of a second to type out five letters and make it "Obama"?
To warrant getting called by your initials, you need to have been frequently called by your initials by multiple major press outlets located somewhere other than the internet. (The internet doesn't count because everything gets turned into a fucking acronym on the internet.) Which brings it down to FDR, JFK and LBJ. Lower the bar to Clinton and Obama and you might as well start referring to Ron Paul as "REP."
"Commenter Helpy-Chalk" does have a nice ring to it.
6 and 8 get it exactly right.
The upside of this is that now the "snake oil salesman," i.e., "just rhetoric," "no experience" etc. meme, is now explicitly linked to its racist undertones.
72, 74, 77, 79: am I way ahead of you guys, or what?
Hey, we call Ruprecht "Knecht." What's the big deal?
I've been advocating for HRC and BHO as primary referents here. For variety's sake, and prose's as well, secondary references can be whatever seems appropriate, but the initials have the benefits of clarity, non-familiarity, and non-reverence.
I would note that, while the "well she uses it" defense has some validity, it doesn't really go with any other local conventions of usage of promotional terms - I don't see any of us referring to Coke as The Real Thing, even if that's what their website calls it (or would, if their website were stuck in the decade when that was Coke's slogan).
I'm sure he just meant Obama was young.
My boyfriend's comment was that "boy" is the word you use when your phone's SMS service won't accept the word "nigger."
57: I thought the convention was that former presidents revert to using their previous highest honorific, so that at any one time, there is only one "President So-and-so".
So Bill Clinton should be referred to as "Governor Clinton".
73. And in Germany they've been cracking down on illegal Doctors.
HRC is much faster to type than Hillary or Senator Clinton and I refuse to type BO, so BHO he is.
83: we call it "Coke", though, which is what they market "Coca-Cola" as.
57 is right. A rule that is harder to enforce now. TR went by Colonel. He could have used Governor too.
85: I think the convention is "once president, forever president," thus President Clinton, President Carter, etc.
Hillary Clinton should be called Clinton. As she is the current person running for president, her husband can be called Bill, just like when he was the president, she was called Hillary.
And the "she chose to market herself as Hillary" thing is bullshit. Of course she did; she's running for president, not feminist of the year. You have to make your decisions about which fights are worth having. That doesn't mean, however, that the fact that "Hillary" was the easier path isn't sexist, or that referring to famous women by their first names in contrast to using men's surnames isn't sexist.
And making excuses for doing so is fucking pathetic.
It's not a bad apology.
Um, I guess that's true insofar as it's not really an apology. As Yglesias notes, whatever harm there was, it had nothing to do with challenging Obama's integrity. That fucker just wants the national attention to die down while, I assume, being clear to his people that he wasn't wrong to call him "boy."
6 and 8 get it exactly right.
Obama cannot bitch about this stuff too much, unless he wants to lose.
No, President is a unique office (VP, Speaker, & Chief Justice too). So only the current officeholder gets the title. Miss Manners has an extensive discussion about this and how it is democratic.
To point out that calling her by the name she, by the evidence of her own campaign's material, would prefer to be called: this is "making excuses"? That's idiotic.
95 referred to something idiotic; it was, in turn, incomprehensible. To remedy, insert "one is".
78: BHO is to balance HRC. HRC is to clarify whom you mean by Clinton. Given that, some significant fraction of the time, using merely "Clinton" doesn't provide sufficient info, an alternative is preferred. Given the issues associated with balancing Obama and Hillary (or "the boy" and "the crone," perhaps), I don't actually see a preferable alternative. Using the title is onerous just for expediency's sake.
BHO is used for the obvious reason that BO is a... problematic term.
94: Like we're going to take advice from someone who still goes by "Miss."
BHO is used for the obvious reason that BO is a... problematic term.
BHO is used to call attention to Obama's muslim middle name, and is therefore thinly veiled racism. The whole move to use initials for the candidates necessarily represents Obama in an unfavorable light.
Hey, look, I can be idiotic, too!
If I liked Hillary at all I might be willing to consider the possibility that calling her "Hillary", depite her branding herself that way, was somehow disrespectful or offensive. As it is, though, I couldn't give a shit less whether some people consider it disrespectful. She doesn't deserve much respect. Cf. the far less respectful "Dubya" (who admittedly is far less deserving of respect).
90 is what I'm familiar with. I've never heard Jimmy Carter called Governor Carter, either.
Vice President Bush??
we call it "Coke", though, which is what they market "Coca-Cola" as.
I wonder what the history is here - did people call it Coke, and Coca Cola grabbed the trademark? Or was it Coke from Day One?
I was a lot more comfortable calling it "Mickey D's" before they started calling it that. Although I suppose that also includes the "parent calling something 'da bomb'" vibe.
96: where should I insert "one is" in 95?
96: oh, hey, the "sifu" in "sifu" tweety is the word I see translated as "teacher' I get it. I knew it was a title of some sort.
I'm a little slow.
So "Knecht" and "Sifu" are titles. Anything else?
For everyone else its "Blogger Ogged" "Lawyer Breath" etc.
102: VP is another title lost with the job.
George H. W. Bush is "Ambassador Bush".
I now think of HRC as "Hillary" largely because she wanted me to. Nancy Pelosi isn't Nancy in my mind, nor is Olympia Snowe Olympia (!). GWB was called Dubya by both friend and foe to differentiate himself between a recent prez with the same name. Thus so with Hillary.
Cf. the far less respectful "Dubya"
I was just pondering that. My recollection is that he was already called that by his [his father's] inner circle prior to running for Pres. His people decided that it would be good marketing to embrace it; I seem to recall that there was a period when lefties would call him Dubya disrespectfully, but that passed.
The real problem is that "BHO" is just an ugly set of initials. Mainstreaming that is bad for Obama.
108: right, but then Hillary's doing the same thing. See 107. So it's bizarre to call it sexism.
Is BHO the cable channel for dislexics?
Here's an odd one, 4 ruffles and flourishes are used for former presidents and for presidents-elect. So they don't get the entrance music of their current title. Weird. I wonder how they are seated. Protocol is filled with this kind of minutiae.
As she is the current person running for president, her husband can be called Bill, just like when he was the president, she was called Hillary.
For awhile, Rory was supporting Sen. Clinton (and yes, I did go back and change that from "Hillary") based on the rationale that she really wants to know what Bill would be called. She sort of backed off on her support, though, because she thinks it would be cool if she -- Rory -- could be the first woman president. She tells me that from school conversations, she's pretty convinced it'll be Clinton or Obama "because people really like 'firsts.'" This is encouraging if that's really the way the youngsters are thinking in my neighborhood.
The real problem is that "BHO" is just an ugly set of initials. Mainstreaming that is bad for Obama.
Though it's better than if you drop the middle name.
As it is, though, I couldn't give a shit less whether some people consider it disrespectful.
Only the good ones deserve my respect.
To point out that calling her by the name she, by the evidence of her own campaign's material, would prefer to be called: this is "making excuses"? That's idiotic.
Un huh. Next we can discuss how pornography that features women fucking animals isn't sexist, since after all, look! There's a woman fucking a dog right there on camera! It's idiotic to say that it's sexist, since she's doing it!
Next we can discuss how pornography that features women fucking animals isn't sexist, since after all, look! There's a woman fucking a dog right there on camera! It's idiotic to say that it's sexist, since she's doing it!
Analogies: still very much banned.
It's not just the ugly initials, mind you--Barrack's got a name problem all around. Not changing his name to something more palitable is probably his biggest mistake of the campaign.
Un huh. Next we can discuss how pornography that features women fucking animals isn't sexist, since after all, look! There's a woman fucking a dog right there on camera! It's idiotic to say that it's sexist, since she's doing it!
Also idiotic.
||
So speaking of lemonade... A couple of the kids down the street decided that, instead of selling lemonade to make money, they would go door to door and offer to sing songs for money. I thought it was kind of clever, a couple of other moms thought it was in shockingly bad taste. Have I no class?
|>
56: Yes. What Ben said, plus better-than-reasonably fresh oranges, preferably thin-peeled. Plus, be prepared to just look like a dumbass sometimes when it doesn't work anyway. Lovely on a negroni, though. God would I like a negr...
Wait, you were just tricking me into being racist.
Analogies: still very much banned.
Especially if they make a cogent point that would lead to a thousand-comment thread if you tried to explain it without them.
Speaking of people whose names I could never think of a good way to shorten: cerebrocrat!
121: it depends on what song they sing.
123: keep telling yourself that -- it might be fun!
Especially if they make a cogent point that would lead to a thousand-comment thread if you tried to explain it without them.
Uh huh. "The fact that any particular woman has found it necessary to accommodate herself to prevailing sexist norms isn't evidence that those norms aren't sexist, nor is it license for anyone else to pretend that they aren't."
The Army band protocol site has some info on that other flap your boy got into.
The Star Spangled Banner
The national anthem of the United States. All military personnel in uniform should face the flag and render hand salute during the performance of The Star Spangled Banner. When indoors, military personnel should stand at attention. All others should remove headgear, face the flag, place the right hand over the heart and stand at attention.
a couple of other moms thought it was in shockingly bad taste
Why?? Shockingly *annoying*, I can see.
instead of selling lemonade to make money, they would go door to door and offer to sing songs for money.
Lazy kids. Offer to pull weeds, and now we're talking.
"Fred" and "Rudy" also made strategic decisions to go by their first names. I guess I think that sorting out the situation would require a better grasp of the ways in which being addressed by last name (or title + last name) vs. first name plays into two contrasts. The first can indicate deference, the second lack of it. But the first can also indicate friendliness, and the second distance. Of course, it's still true that the trade-offs are different for Clinton, because of gender.
Probably it matters that it would be "Mayor Giuliani" (a less impressive title than Senator), and that Thompson is best known for his acting.
Analogies: still very much banned.
Is there also a ban on focal meaning?
127: Thanks, Ogged!
I did more or less say that upthread, actually. But okay, you're better at abstract jargony explanations than I am. It's probably because you're a man.
So if I follow the restated, cogent point in 127: we should ignore a woman's preferences if, in our judgment, those preferences signal that woman's tacit acceptance of sexist norms?
we should ignore a woman's preferences if, in our judgment, those preferences signal that woman's tacit acceptance of sexist norms?
Don't ignore them, but don't pretend that her preferences weren't shaped by living around sexist norms.
If you're talking to Clinton in person, you can call her by her first name. Or if you're working on her campaign. Otherwise, you follow the standard rule that people running for office are referred to by their surnames.
Okay, Tweety? It's really a fairly simple concept.
Not changing his name to something more palitable
that's idiotic too
it would be like Michael Jackson changing his skin
136: I'm not.
137: tell it to Senator Clinton.
Serious question, Tweety: did you *really* not understand my point until Ogged stepped in and expressed it in abstract language?
To warrant getting called by your initials, you need to have been frequently called by your initials by multiple major press outlets located somewhere other than the internet.worked in a law firm, which BHO and HRC both have. Although I mostly prefer to stick to "Obama" and "Clinton," since pointless lawyerisms irk me when I remember to care.
Fuck. WHATEVER.
I think that is what the female performer said just prior to filming the scene mentioned in your 116, B.
140: if I restated it correctly then, yes, I must say I'm surprised that's the point you're making.
As far as not calling Hillary Hillary, as I said above, it is completely beyond me how you can fault people for abiding by her preference -- as expressed thousands of times a day on bumper stickers -- to be called by her first name.
For awhile, Rory was supporting Sen. Clinton (and yes, I did go back and change that from "Hillary") based on the rationale that she really wants to know what Bill would be called.
She could just be President Rodham.
Otherwise, you follow the standard rule that people running for office are referred to by their surnames.
But there seems to be exceptions to that rule for candidate that share their names with other, more famous officeholders (Dubya, JEB!) and candidates that already well-known by their first name or a diminutive (Rudy). Hillary Clinton would qualify for both.
A further question: Hillary took her husband's surname: is that a sexist practice? Why is it more sexist to refer to her by her first name than it is to refer to her by her husband's surname? In both cases she freely chose to take part in a plausibly sexist practice.
Which is all a way of rephrasing what I said above: the whole debate is idiotic. Call the woman what she wants you to call her which -- by all available evidence -- is "Hilllary", or call her something else, but don't pretend you're taking the moral high ground by doing it.
Well, probably not "Hilllary." Maybe "Hilllllllary," though!
Rudy ran as Giuliani because Guiliani is hard to spell consistently correctly. I think Fred was going for folksy, but let's be honest: he simply took the laziest possible route. Thompson? That's an awful lot of letters, dontcha think?
I could never think of a good way to shorten: cerebrocrat!
'bro' doesn't work for you?
As a compromise, what about just calling Clinton "Vince Foster's Killer" and use the initials "VFK?" That way, she gets to take the wind out of That Boy's sundry Kennedy endorsements and say she's reclaiming right wing terms of derision, a la "queer."
Everybody wins.
Actually, now that I think about it, I never saw Rudy or Fred referred to that way except when people (Rudy!) were making fun of them.
Huh.
150: That way, she gets to take the wind out of That Boy's sundry Kennedy endorsements and say she's reclaiming right wing terms of derision, a la "queer."
Good to have you back, bro.
129: Yeah, I'm not sure I get why. I was a little worried that this might mean I have no sense of decency or community standards.
A further question: Hillary took her husband's surname: is that a sexist practice? Why is it more sexist to refer to her by her first name than it is to refer to her by her husband's surname?
Oh, barf. Tweety, look, I *really* want to believe that you are serious about this shit, because the alternative is that you think it's funny to act like an idiot. But if you really are seriously not getting it, you might want to just slow down a wee little bit before you start this "that's idiotic!" dismissiveness.
So, taking your questions at face value, rather than reading them as trollish "haha, let me make you jump through the hoops of my male cleverness!" bullshit:
Yes, it is sexist to take one's husband's last name. Note that Clinton didn't do this until it became clear that calling herself Rodham was *a political liability*. In short, she made a concession to reality. That's fine, people do that; but don't act like you can't fucking tell the difference unless you really want me to think you're stupid.
Why is it more sexist to call her "Hillary" than to refer to her by *her* last name? Because the convention is to refer to politicians and public figures by their surnames. We do this out of respect; one refers to people one knows personally by their first names. Referring to a public figure who you do not know personally by their first name is generally understood to be either pretentious or an attempt to demean them. Clinton changed her surname to Clinton, so that's the surname with which one refers to her.
And yes, she's gone with "Hillary" in the campaign material, as a concession to reality. If you, too, want to concede to the sexist reality that women get treated familiarly, while men get treated with more formal respect, then fine, go ahead. Just don't fucking pretend that you're not being sexist, is all I fucking ask.
In other words, you can do whatever the hell you like, but at least have the balls to do it without demanding mommy's approval.
150 was pretty awesome. How have you been, cerebrocrat?
151: Ya think, Einstein?
A surprisingly* relevant piece in Salon today. It's not free of racist dumbassery, but the general point it's making is right on.
*Only not really.
Ya think, Einstein?
I'm on your side, B.
155: so she made concessions to political reality, and some of those are okay to honor but some of them aren't?
No, really: idiotic.
I don't quite no way I'm taking the bait, though. Feeling punchy today.
Sure, you bet. It's demeaning. Poor Hillary.
In other words, you can do whatever the hell you like, but at least have the balls to do it without demanding mommy's approval.
I could give a fuck what you think; my habit of pointing out when people are being stupid is a failing, I know.
And actually, 159 reminds me that I'm done: plenty of walls to bang my head against right here in the room!
The last word is yours, B, as ever.
pornography that features women fucking animals isn't sexist
I only watch pornography that features women fucking two animals.
Wanna know why?
Actually, now that I think about it, I never saw Rudy or Fred referred to that way except when people (Rudy!) were making fun of them.
Well, that and the yard signs.
Are any of the women not likely to be confused with their spouses (or, like Murkowski, relatives) and currently in office going by their first names? I can't think of any of the other Senators, or any of the House members, going by first names.
I generally go with matching last name with last name for the presidential candidates, unless the context requires the first names to make it clear who's being talked about. I assume something about Obama and Clinton is going to be about Barack and Hillary, unless either Bill or (less often, but it's happened) or Michelle were involved. Then I try not to use first name only.
Oh good heavens. Sifu and B, you both have valid points. Yes, HRC made assorted choices about what she'd be called in tension with sexist norms. On the one hand, it feels somewhat dismissive to reject her choices on the theory that the poor dear just really had no choice in the matter. On the other hand, to the extent her choices seem to diminish women more broadly (by signaling that respectful address is less necessary) then why should honoring her individual choice be more important than advocating standards beneficial to women generally. Neither one of you is a total fucking idiot. Seriously.
I do sort of have the impression that Rudy got first name treatment without it being demeaning. But I'm not sure that's based on anything.
I do sort of have the impression that Rudy got first name treatment without it being demeaning.
Certainly not demeaning enough.
it feels somewhat dismissive to reject her choices on the theory that the poor dear just really had no choice in the matter
Except that no one is actually doing that. And if you think that the people referring to her as Hillary are doing so out of their great respect for her "choices" rather than out of the same sloppy (and entirely unintentional!!) sexism that led her to make that "choice," then you're being played for a fool.
161-2-3: 'Cuz I'm a feminist!
(I didn't know Sifu was an honorific. I thought it was an acronym.)
I don't quite no way I'm taking the bait, though.
If you re-read the thread, sweetie, you'll see that there was no baiting. I was responding initially to Stras, and you had to take umbrage. I wouldn't presume to suggest why you felt the need to do that, though.
(I didn't know Sifu was an honorific. I thought it was an acronym.)
I just thought it was a pain in the ass. (Love to you, my brother-in-cycling!)
Anyway, I'm sorry I lost my temper. I don't like being played for a fool, what can I say.
Both Rudy and Fred made use of the familiarizing first-name gambit because they knew it would benefit them. Rudy because he has a ginzo last name (me too!) and a cold fish reputation. Fred, because "my pal Fred" was pretty much all he had. Hillary uses it, too, to "soften her image," and surely her need for a softer image is largely informed by sexism. But she really wants us all to think of her as Hillary.
I don't remember the former Prime Minister of Great Britain being called "Maggie" in anything other than a satirical way.
The title isn't grafted on. They aren't special and magical holy people, and I shouldn't have to talk about them like they are or address them in a way I wouldn't address any other civil servant.
Although I tend to line up with stras on the ways things are and oughta be, I have a more practiced response to this. I go out of my way to use honorifics. This comes from working for labor unions and doing outreach to priests, electeds, and other people of institutional elevation. A friend gave me advice before meeting with Monsignor O'C. who had just been elevated from Father O'C. "He has a title," she said, "he probably likes to hear it."
Oops.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101830620,00.html
I almost never use British non-occupational titles. I wanted to tell one of my roommates recently that it's ok to call Alec Guinness "Alec Guinness" - especially if you're talking about a Star Wars movie re-running on tv.
For some reason, although I don't like being called "Dr." I kinda like being called "Professor." It gives me a little ego boost. I don't think people have any obligation to walk around boosting my ego, though, so I encourage my students to call me Rob.
I confess I can't get worked up over naming in Hillary Clinton's case either. I suppose I think she's doing herself a disservice with the "Hillary" branding; by the same token, I have on occasion had to pause to remind myself that "Obama" is actually the man's surname.
But in the political arena these days, it is indeed branding. I find that more interesting than the rest.
Also, I think we should address all lawyers as "councilor."
Councilor Lizard Breath
Councilor Will.
I always have this instinct to call Obama "Baby Bam" which (a) racist, (b) redolent of the compulsive nicknaming so irritating in our current chief executive (c) really inappropriate and (d) an awfully obscure reference. So I don't. Hillary.
(no really B was quite gracious up above what were we thinking friends! etc.)
175: I mostly avoid titles as much as I think I can get away with (which is pretty much always). It's kind of weird being in a title-conscious environment for the first time since high school, but really, fuck that. Which isn't to say I wouldn't use them shamelessly if I thought it would help me accomplish something worthwhile.
Also, Cornell West should always be addressed by his title in the Matrix movies, Councilman West.
Duvall identifies part of the problem above, at #145: it's hard to distinguish between the use of HRC's first name as an indication of endearment--functioning in the same way that nicknames do--from either straight sexism or an attempt to irritate that depends on sexism (to which I think ogged copped). I don't think strong HRC supporters who refer to her as "Hillary" are doing anything wrong or causing harm; context matters. I don't call her "Hillary" because I don't have any deep affection for her; I call Bill "the Big Dog" sometimes because I still do (though less of late).
186: Actually, it's easy to distinguish, but it depends on being able to say, "The difference is that you don't like her."
185: I kind of love him due to the fact that when I gaped at him smiling (Councilman West, how cool are you for attending the annual meeting of the American Philological Association?) in the conference booksale room, he gave me a big smile back.
178: My adviser insisted on being called by his first name, which was awesome. At the same time, some of his older colleagues didn't mind me calling them "Professor X". I tried to avoid "Dr.", 'cause that's no different than just a plain ol' post-doc.
The title "doctor" is deprecated at the University of Chicago. Not done.
I saw Noam Chomsky give a talk at the American Philosophical Association, and right before the talk Councilman West came up and tried to give him a hug. Professor Chomsky drew back in a way that said "I'm not a hugger!" or perhaps "I'm really old and you might break me."
The title "doctor" is deprecated at the University of Chicago. Not done.
Some students are known to judge that this creates a problem when addressing female professors. Men you can call Mr. Soandso, but you can't be sure (I guess the feeling is) whether a female prof will want to be called Ms., and you can't know right away whether Mrs. or Miss is appropriate.
I suppose the solution is just to say "Professor soandso".
See? I think Councilman West is just like that. Apparently he spent his summers in Santa Fe for a couple years and turned up at the SJC Friday night lectures. Man is just intellectual. I didn't even go to the Friday night lectures when I was required to as a student.
193, 93: I feel you. I've always just used Ms and/or Professor. As a grad student, nearly everyone tells you to call them by their first name, anyhow. Except P*t*r Wh*t*, whom I call Mr. Wh*t* and who calls me Ms. Oudemia. (Even though we hug and kiss when we see each other. Not like that, you pervs.)
As a grad student, nearly everyone tells you to call them by their first name, anyhow.
Misplaced modifier, Ms. oudemia!
I address all common folk as "Goodman" or "Goody".
Indeed you are correct, sir! I even noticed it and was too lazy to fix. Hélas.
180: That's Counselor LizardBreath to you; I give advice, I'm not a member of a committee. (You do get addressed as 'Counsel' by judges and court staff who don't remember your name, which I still get a kick out of.)
Since ogged is such a sexist, maybe all of the women -- except me -- can be divvied up as Ofogged or Ofben.
200: oudemia, that is the weirdest damn thing I've heard someone say around here in a long time.
The thought of ranking unfogged comments by weirdness totally boggles me. Where would one start? Or stop?
And I'm not sticking my face in the blender of women and naming conventions again, perhaps ever.
200. I loved the Handmaid's Tale. The movie didn't really work, though.
And I'm not sticking my face in the blender of women and naming conventions again, perhaps ever.
200's absurdity was in the spirit of this very feeling.
I'm not sticking my face in the blender of women and naming conventions again, perhaps ever.
Don't let the man beat you down, LB.
205: The metaphor of you, a woman, being stuck, even by yourself, into a blender is extremely sexist.
Misplaced modifier
Is a misplace modifier the same thing as a dangling clause? I write the latter on my students' papers when they do the thing that was done above.
I guess I call it a misplaced modifier on student papers -- since it's not dangling so much as modifying the wrong thing. But I don't rightly know.
It's not modifying anything. Isn't that the whole problem?
I'm fine with how that modifier is placed, personally. Hang in there, dear little fella!
I like "dangling" for this kind of misplaced modifier, because the thing it's supposed to adhere to doesn't appear in the sentence at all, so it's just dangling away without its intended complement. But it's still also a misplaced modifier, because it's in a mistaken place, such that it is incorrectly modifying "almost anyone."
Is a misplace modifier the same thing as a dangling clause?
I have only heard "dangling participle", and Ms. Oudemia hadn't used a participial phrase. I always assumed that the dangling participle was a species of the misplaced modifier.
Sybil, it's modifying "everyone". Compare "as an asshole, I feel compelled to correct everyone all the damn time."
because the thing it's supposed to adhere to doesn't appear in the sentence at all
"You" most certainly did appear in the sentence.
such that it is incorrectly modifying "almost anyone."
Yes. RFTS feels me. And my mistakes.
Wait, I'm confused: why isn't it modifying "as a Grad Student"
219 to 217, not some kind of strange example of calling myself "it".
But it's not modifying "everyone." Structurally, the suggestion is that it should modify "everyone" but that which it modifies, content-wise, is absent.
But right, dangling participle. Dangling seems to most accurately describe what is going on int hat formulation; the clause is just dangling out there. But I tend to think grammar in terms of diagrams, so maybe that's why this works for me.
Lazy kids. Offer to pull score some weeds, and now we're talking.
217: Ben is also right. So, position wise it's modifying the wrong thing. It is misplaced -- displaced, in fact, by me. I feel the UN should be involved.
(I have eaten quite literally nothing today and am feeling that wacky buzzed feeling.)
This is too confusing. English should do something simple like adopt a rigid case system.
Oh. I get it.
Fuck you, I'm retarded in the head.
Yeah way to blow the whole grammar thing, oudemia.
You'e right, Ben, the modifier is there, just in the wrong place. So m.m. makes the most sense as a term here. But with something like, "Walking down the street, my pants got wet." I like dangling clause.
Ben is also right.
You'e right, Ben
Please, can we not discuss grammar? I can't bear hearing anyone else say this.
"as a pedant, people are always like 'oh baby can I ride your jock?' and I'm like 'no, this is how you like my eggs.'"
Part of this site's identity is built around grammar discussions. We can't give that up. For clause and comrades!
You're extra-punchy today, B. I like it.
Punch! Punch!
Geez Sybil I'm punchy and you don't say anything. I bet you aren't a cyclist.
OT:
Does anyone know if it's possible to use the e-resources for the Columbia University and/or NYU libraries without being a student? As in: could someone walk in to a library, sit down at one of their computers and use the catalog and the university article databases?
The guy that I went out with has really terrible grammar and is well aware of it. I had told him what I'd studied, and when the phrase "close attention to grammar and syntax" crossed my lips, he admitted his discomfort I've been tempted to correct him, but I'm quite sure that it would be more annoying than helpful. "There has been threats of" did, in fact, break me. "Pretty unique" also bothers me a lot. I am a pedant, but subject/ verb agreement is not too much to ask!
So "Knecht" and "Sifu" are titles. Anything else?
Bringing the thread full circle, "Knecht" is a title in approximately the same sense that "boy" was an honorific in the early 20th century American South. Knecht is variously translated as "farmhand", "bondsman" or "serf" (Hayek's The Road to Serfdom is known as Der Weg zur Knechtschaft in German, and Hegel's dialectic of Lordship and Bondage was Herrschaft und Knechtschaft in the original). The English word "knave" is etymologically related; both words have acquired increasingly perjorative connotations over time.
Why I adopted this pseud is a story for another day, but suffice it to say that it is not self-aggrandizing.
You've been punchy for weeks, Sifu. You punched my will away in that homeless jogging thread. Also, I have had to reevaluate my mental iteration of your name now that I have realized the first word is meant to be the mandarin word. That sort of thing throws me.
235: tell him the key is to adopt a protective shell of ironic colloquialism. Then nobody will know you don't really speak the word-speaking-thing... language, nobody will know you aren't speak the language.
237: hey, is it my fault that woman is worthless scum?
What had you imagined the first word of my handle was?
Modifiers attached to unique don't really bother me anymore. Maybe because I make that "mistake" or maybe because I see it as a way of distinguishing things like 1 in a million from 1 in a 1000 from 1 in a 100, depending on the modifier chosen.
236: I thought it was some sort of evil ilttle German santa? Now I'm all confused.
And yes, I know "rare" is a better word choice.
I just was saying it phonetically - Sigh-Fu. Now when I read it I am being thrown back to my first few weeks of language lessons in Beijing.
will, why are you all e.e. cummings about your handle?
Scientists seem to say "pretty unique" a lot. "Pretty unique" was employed in conversation. The other one was written in an e-mail which was so much worse.
241: OK if the modifier you're thinking of is "nearly." Otherwise we may have to kill you.
I thought it was some sort of evil ilttle German santa? Now I'm all confused.
Yes, that's correct. Ruprecht is the servant/bondsman of St. Nicholas. In most traditions, he has a mean streak, and is responsible for meting out the punishments to naughty children who haven't earned a present from Nikolaus.
I was responding to the comment that "Knecht" was a form of honorific (which it is, if only in a very limited sense).
Google search results suggest that "nearly unique" isn't that common, especially compared to "pretty unique." Add in a site:unfogged.com to your search and prepare for disappointment!
I cannot control it, Sybil. It changes on me.
I do love may i feel said he and somewhere i have never traveled.
And yes, I know "rare" is a better word choice.
"Distinctive", "unconventional", and "unusual" also work. But, in truth, none of these convey quite the same shade of meaning as the misuse of "unique".
"almost unique" on the other hand, is almost as common on google as "pretty unique."
"there has been threats of" is pretty uniquely bad.
Practically, approximately, essentially, plausibly: all perfectly valid.
245: as an aside, Sybil, if it helps, I honestly mostly pronounce it "see foo", which closely massacres the cantonese pronunciation.
253: "Almost" is also fine.
255: "Practically one of a kind"
"Approximately one of a kind"
"Essentially one of a kind"
"Plausibly one of a kind"
None of those really work for me.
Sometimes you say to yourself "hey, shit, what if I wanted to have four comments in a row in one thread?"
Well, what if?
closely massacres
Pretty uniquely closely massacres, I'd say.
258: (a) You ruined my run of four comments. (b) Who cares if they work for you? They are grammatical. All else is gravy.
"as an asshole, I feel compelled to correct everyone all the damn time."
but never corrects me, why is that?
though that would be like pretty useful educationally for me and along my goal to learn the language
others may be do not care are they corrected or not, they know english well enough
OT: I was asked out today by a real live human gentleman who is not related to me, a student, or who owes me money! Yay!
Continue with whatever the hell it is you're talking about.
It can't be helped, Tweety. I am not only stuck in mandarin, but Beijing mandarin, which ends that first syllable with a merciless errrrrrrgh, guttural and sloshy.
OT:
I can demonstrate through bank accounts, statements, and any other information necessary that I am not wealthy. I can also demonstrate that I do not personally own a car. This should show that I could never afford to attend school out of state. I can also demonstrate that neither of my parent's attended a four year college, which should further show my financial inability to attend school out of state.
Is it hopelessly elitist to find this less than compelling in the cover letter to an unsolicited resume?
264: "shr-fwuuah" is certainly an option.
262: you'll notice he never corrects me either, read: both of us are beyond hope.
266: tell me the state was Wyoming.
264: I love that sound! So satisfying to make, like the "le" where you just kind of drop your jaw.
What was the point of the letter, Napi?
269: yeah, I love it too. Especially with the plaintive "fo-uuu-aah", I can't say it without thinking of hapless acolytes awaiting orders as the barbarian hordes (sorry read!) burn their temple.
Knecht is being too modest. The traditional Knecht character who accompanies Niklaus on his rounds is a black-faced darkie so egregiously offensive that I'm not sure it's fully comprehensible to Americans. We have received from Germany and the Netherlands* Xmas gifts wrapped in Knecht Ruprecht paper.
Google Image search, and despair for transAtlantic relations.
* Where he's called "Black (or whatever the Dutch word for black is - probably 'blek' or 'swartz') Piet"
Michigan.
You have something against Wyoming?
261: The point was that I'm not fully buying the claim that they're grammatical. Whether anyone will trust the pedantry of a guy who can't even manage subject-verb agreement is another matter entirely.
274: what? Of course they're grammatical. I defy you to prove otherwise! Defy! Defy!
Is it hopelessly elitist to find this less than compelling in the cover letter to an unsolicited resume?
No. The kid needs to learn a lesson about how to play that card with the requisite subtlety. "Since I decided to pursue a career in the law at the age of 16, it has been my goal to enter the profession with a firm such as [Napi's firm]. The challenges I have surmounted along the way--my upbringing in a non-college household, my need to finance my own education in the absence of financial support from my parents, my need to remain close to home to tend to my family--testify to the strength of my commitment this goal.
Is it hopelessly elitist to find this less than compelling in the cover letter to an unsolicited resume?
No. The kid needs to learn a lesson about how to play that card with the requisite subtlety. "Since I decided to pursue a career in the law at the age of 16, it has been my goal to enter the profession with a firm such as [Napi's firm]. The challenges I have surmounted along the way--my upbringing in a non-college household, my need to finance my own education in the absence of financial support from my parents, my need to remain close to home to tend to my family--testify to the strength of my commitment to achieving this goal.
270 -- Sent resume looking for job. I don't understand the point of telling me the quoted text. Do you?
Oh! Those bastards! You have to go in a few pages to get to the real thing. Here's a fairly inoffensive one; here's another. This one's another flavor of inappropriate.
We should've scanned the wrapping paper.
272: The Dutch Zwarte Piet is a rough analog to Knecht Ruprecht, but I am not convinced that the two share a common ancestry. For one thing, there is a German "Schwarzer Peter" who has nothing to do with St. Nicholas. For another, the German Knecht Ruprecht more a pathetic than an evil figure (though the Austrian equivalent, Krampus, is distinctly diabolical--and often rendered in black).
273: of course not. The state schools there produced our current vice president, after all.
The quoted text just shows that he is paranoid and filled with self-doubt. Sounds like a firm shooter to me.
I'd get someone else to write the rejection letter.
He finished law school?
275: 258 is the best I've got. If you want more than that, you'll have to talk to someone who actually cares enough to do more than the occasional disgusted grimace. I freely admit that I could be wrong. But dammit, I know what I like, and "approximately unique" ain't it.
280: Interesting. I should ask my FIL (who just left town today, alas); to this day, the angriest his ex-wife, my MIL, has been at him was the time that he was dressed as KR for his Army unit's Xmas party, supposedly giving out gifts to kiddies. As the went door to door pre-party, everyone invited him and Nikolaus in for schnapps, and so he was dozens of sheets to the wind by the time he arrived.
I note that the German Simpsons has named Santa's Little Helper "Knecht Ruprecht."
284: it's not about feeling good, man.
"Unique to a first approximation" suit you better?
I learned to be anti-"modifier unique" when I was 7 or 8. I've now learned to grit my teeth and move on.
I assume I'm fairly unique in this.
278: I would read the intended message as: "My grades and LSATs were good enough to get into a better law school, but I couldn't afford it. Please don't hold the one I actually attended against me."
(And maybe a little: "Also, I deserve extra credit for overcoming obstacles," as suggested in 276 and 277.)
I'll totally go to the mat for my modifiers.
Here, I'll add more: incredibly, impossibly, simply, categorically, fully.
Oh the wonderful thing about Sifus is Sifu's the only one....
283 -- Yep, finished in the top quarter after pulling a C+ average first year. Hasn't done very well in the 3 years since, though: last job on the resume is 10/06-01/07. It's tough out there, no doubt about it.
Knecht undoubtedly has it right. At least that it's hoped that I'd see obstacles overcome. And it worked, to the extent that I actually read the resume, which is more than I do for 90% of the ones I get. And makes me sorrier than usual to have to say no -- not because the record shows any indication of possible success in my firm, but because it looks like someone went to an awful lot of effort to get to what seems a hopeless state.
This reminds me that I'm not sure when I should be sure that I'm not going to hear from a job I applied for.
288 -- Maybe. But then there's nothing wrong with including undergraduate GPA on the resume. Means more to me that the two years as an RA.
Doesn't Michigan have a pretty good in-state law school?
Huh, I thought undergrad GPA was supposed to be dropped if there was grad school following it. Maybe I should put mine back in.
292: Has it been over a year?
i read Sifu phonetically like 'seafood' without d, hope it's the right pronunciation
eb, do you have a picture of waterfall? it brings luck and fortune etc
but you know fengshui better than me, can't you just call them and ask, it's so much easier than waiting in uncertainty, to know the answer and move on
Anyway, I tried to write a cover letter of the form "I'm changing careers to do what [organization] is doing, and here's what I've done to show my commitment to and qualifications for that" but I don't think I did it as well as I could have. Probably should have given it another day to revise.
296: No. It really hasn't been long at all. And the hiring schedule is unclear (as in, they hire throughout the year; it's a temporary position so people rotate in and out - kind of like an internship without being called one).
And catching up with this thread, I'm pretty much in agreement with 258. Sorry, Sifu.
300: you don't have to be sorry to about being wrong.
Shit, I'm sorry.
294 -- It does. It has pretty good in-state undergrad institutions. The resume is not from an alum of that law school, or those undergrad institutions.
294 -- It does. It has pretty good in-state undergrad institutions. The resume is not from an alum of that law school, or those undergrad institutions.
295 -- I think you can include undergrad GPA if it's impressive and somehow relates to the job. If it's part of the narrative you're going for. For the people I hire, this is almost never true -- but I look at law school transcripts, even if someone's been out 3 or 4 years.
I'm stumped, then -- it was the only thing I could think of to explain the peculiar emphasis on not being able to attend an out-of-state school.
But it's certainly right that no one would feel the need to apologize for attending the University of Michigan.
299: Then I'd say it starts seeming unlikely after a couple of months, but it's not out of the question for quite a while longer. Some organizations can be really slow to figure out what they're trying to do or to tell anyone when they do.
That's both reassuring and worrying (since ideally I'll be working somewhere before a couple of months).
285: OK, my MIL was still downstairs after dinner. FIL was, indeed, in blackface for the infamous Knecht Ruprecht incident. Also, in contrast to the nattily-dressed Black Piet, Knecht was traditionally portrayed in rags and chains. Uplifting.
But it's certainly right that no one would feel the need to apologize for attending the University of Michigan.
Perhaps they wanted to be clear that they might have been an affirmative action enrollee, but actually wasn't.
Or some other suggestion that would play on the recent a-a SCOTUS case. I'm a bit tired, sorry.
152/153/156: thanks, mang! / thanks, Blogger Ogged / thanks, eh... what is the feminine equivalent of "mang?" I really have no idea. Anyway: extends fist for knuckle-bump
B'girl: mostly awful, yet recently great, so it all kind of balances out. It's very reassuring to come back and find B and Teech tossing drinks in each other's faces, yet still throwing their arms around each other when it's time to sing drinking songs.
I don't remember the former Prime Minister of Great Britain being called "Maggie" in anything other than a satirical way.
No, die-hard fans always called her "Maggie", just as they had been big fans of "Enoch", for example. They had quite the creepy sex-cult thing going on; cf the diaries of Alan Clarke.
Having the first name that I do means that people occasionally call me "Danny Boy", so I can completely empathise in every single regard with every black person who has ever lived (I also have ginger hair so arguably I am even more discriminated against than they are). I used to find it irritating but by now I've more or less got over it. I suspect Hillary Clinton has used that phrase on more than one occasion too.
(I always say "Clinton" and "Obama", because it's the only way I have of remembering that "Obama" is in fact a surname. It is correct though - one ought to be punctilious about these things).
The deal with Knecht Rupprecht/ Black Piet is this, according to my Dutch colleague: Santa Claus comes round with his sack and takes presents out of it for all the good children. Then his little helper comes round with his sack and puts all the bad children into it and takes them away to Barbary to be slaves. This makes sense if (as in the Netherlands, Ireland and southern England) you have a history of North African slavers landing on your coast and rounding up anyone who couldn't run fast enough.
In Haiti, there's a similar double act: Tonton Noel (Uncle Christmas) who gives out the presents, and Uncle Knapsack, who takes away the bad children. "Uncle Knapsack" translates, of course, as Tonton Macoute - the nickname for Papa Doc Duvalier's secret police, for obvious reasons.
Is "knecht" also related to "knight"? If I remember Chaucer, it was originally pronounced like "k'nicht".
311: cerebrocrat, Very sorry to hear that things were really awful. Glad to know that things are great now.
This makes sense if (as in the Netherlands, Ireland and southern England) you have a history of North African slavers landing on your coast
do what?
do what?
Certainly. They plagued the life out of Henry VII and most of his predecessors. I think the later Tudors more or less saw them off.
I never have a problem remembering that Obama is a surname, but I have a barely controllable urge to insert an apostraphe after the "O".
My all-time favorite cover letter included the writer's representation that he was "easy on the eyes." Yes, this was a lawyer.
315: yep, here's a link. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
An estimated 1.25 million Europeans were captured by North African slavers between the 16th and 18th centuries. It was going on well after Henry VII, by the way: the Sack of Baltimore (that's Ireland, not Maryland) was in 1631, when basically the entire population of the town was enslaved. The corsairs also attacked European shipping, enslaving the crews. This link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
reports around 8,000 slaves taken in three years (1677 to 1680) - that's only counting British slaves and only those taken from ships at sea rather than in coastal raids. At the height of the Barbary slave trade, there were more Europeans being enslaved each year than Africans.
Is "knecht" also related to "knight"? If I remember Chaucer, it was originally pronounced like "k'nicht".
Yes, it is related. And it's not related to "knave", contrary to what I wrote earlier (knave is related to the German Knabe, which has endearing rather than perjorative connotations; I must have been drunk when I wrote that). The thing is, the connotations of Knecht and knight are not merely different, but *opposite*. A Knecht in a military context is emphatically a footsoldier rather than a mounted knight.
My all-time favorite cover letter included the writer's representation that he was "easy on the eyes." Yes, this was a lawyer.
Odd, isn't it, that convention forbids mentioning this? Because there is a ton of evidence that being "easy on the eyes" is a significant contributor to professional success in all but a handful of fields. In a professional services setting, I'd wager it is worth more at the margin than 40-50 basis points of GPA. There's the "halo effect", in which people attribute other positive qualities to attractive people. And then you have the internal organizational dynamic, where people will be more willing to do things that please you, thus facilitating your success. At the client interface, the client will be happier to see you and want to see you more often. This becomes even more critical to success as you enter the partner ranks.
On the one hand, I can understand how attractiveness is a taboo subject (it's mostly a genetic lottery, it seems unrelated to our customary notion of objective "merit"). And I can also see how, from a pragmatic perspective, the beautiful applicant might prefer to just hope he/she gets through the resume screen and let his/her attractiveness speak for itself in the interview. But as an empirical matter, I think it's undeniable that good looks are an asset to the individual and the firm, and I believe that there are some elite organizations (Goldman Sachs comes to mind) where a preference for good looks is a conscious, if unstated, component of the HR policy.
I think the 'taboo' likely mostly comes from the "Oh, really?" effect. Don't tell me you're 'easy on the eyes, I'll decide if you're easy on the eyes." If the good looks don't actually have the judgment-warping effects described at an interview, then they're not good enough.
Isn't it also taboo because no one would literally say to an applicant, "Yeah, the thing that cinched it for you here was your striking good looks and all-around sexiness"? Or do I overestimate the hiring discourse?
the connotations of Knecht and knight are not merely different, but *opposite*. A Knecht in a military context is emphatically a footsoldier rather than a mounted knight.
If you think of "knight" as "armoured man on horse", sure. But as "servant of the king", it makes more sense.
The word Landsknecht, a German mercenary footsoldier, gave rise to "Landser", the modern German equivalent of "squaddie" or "grunt".
321: I agree with you that it's a bad idea to make the claim on a cover letter. And yet, I have to ask why bragging on one's appearance provokes the "Oh, really?" effect, when it is perfectly acceptable to toot one's own horn as a hard-working, motivated, high-achieving, all-around great guy/gal, all of which are qualities that the employer would presumably also want to vet in the interview. The convention against touting attractiveness seems related to a real taboo--the taboo of acknowledging the importance of such an arbitrary, "unearned" factor in a "merit-based" selection process. It's so at odds with conventional notions of fairness that it threatens to undermine the moral legitimacy of the meritocracy. So it must be ignored, even though any honest person would privately acknowledge its existence.
"Yeah, the thing that cinched it for you here was your striking good looks and all-around sexiness poise and presence. We really got the feeling that you would integrate well into our team and make a good first impression on the client."
N.B. this is probably less true of hiring law firm associates, since they can, in many cases, be hidden away in an office by themselves for 5-6 years with no detrimental impact on their revenue-generating capacity.
A woman mailed me an 8X10 glamour shot as part of her application to become the executive director of a non-profit.
For the record, while I am not the Elephant Man, I don't doubt that my career prospects would be improved if I could trade five percentile rank points of IQ for five percentile points of attractiveness. It's a marginal utility thing, so obviously there is an indifference curve somewhere asymptotic to the two axes.
326. If anybody did that to me I'd be strongly tempted to send them a rejection letter on the back of a photocopy of my arse. But I'd resist.
A woman mailed me an 8X10 glamour shot as part of her application to become the executive director of a non-profit
Once again, that's in questionable taste, but it is far from irrelevant to her qualifications for the job, if one is honest about it.
I'm going to go into troll mode and say that it would be equally important to see a picture of the woman's mother, because feminine beauty is a wasting asset, and you want to get a sense of the asset's residual value when the candidate is at the peak of her career.
I've definitely watched that happen in academia, especially with young white men with nice eyes and very expensive suits. Everyone looks "a little tired!" next to them, and even if the hot guy doesn't get the job, sometimes no one else does, either. The guy I'm going out with next week is of this type and in my field, and, though I'm actually pretty sure he's a good and decent person, I'd pay big bucks never to interview against him.
But as an empirical matter, I think it's undeniable that good looks are an asset to the individual and the firm,
I'd dispute this. Social charisma, yes. Looks-qua-looks, no. Even though all the lookism studies, blah, blah, blah. I'd stay and argue further, but I have to haul my gorgeous ass off to teach differential equations.
but it is far from irrelevant to her qualifications for the job
Is it? In an ED of a non-profit, you'd certainly look for good grooming and easy social skills, but do you actually want glamour? In many non-profits a lot of the people they would be working with would likely see your hot ED coming and react, "Oh fuck, another airhead with big hair coming to act the lady/lord bountiful." You're not appointing a sales rep. here, at least not mainly.
If anybody did that to me I'd be strongly tempted to send them a rejection letter on the back of a photocopy of my arse.
As in: no, this is the standard of beauty we expect around here; your face doesn't even match up to this.
re: 330
Yeah, I interviewed up against someone like that. I have no idea if he got the job, but he was all tanned and handsome looking sitting waiting to go in for the interview while I was smartly-dressed but pale and doughy by comparison.
It can be a double-edged sword for women. One needs to be beautiful without being ditzy.
Since I've had a low-sleep night with the onset of flu, I am envisioning cover letters like "I'm all smart an' shit, so gimme this job or I will fuck up your shit so clever." This is probably not helpful.
As apology, please have 30 seconds of a cat encountering a theremin.
I was clicking on that imagining I'd see a video I saw previously on an autism blog, but apparently more than one cat has been caught on YouTube enjoying a theremin. More theremin-playing cats, please!
317: If you're going to represent in your cover letter that you're "easy on the eyes," you should probably go all the way and address it "Hey Baby, . . ."
Why not "I am highly qualified for this firm, in part because of my monster cock"? Surely having a couple of guys around whose ego is super-charged by the constant knowledge of their massive appendages would be "good for the firm." IYKWIM.
Ooh, I report that I wanted to smack someone. A booth at a community fair, giving away apples and carrots. Hurray! I take an apple. I read the display. Recommended calories for young men: 2800. Gee, that looks like what we'd expect. Recommended calories for young women:
1600.
OTOH, how about, "I am highly qualified because I am both entirely unsexy and totally undersexed, so I will be able to devote all my energies to my work without the usual distractions and periodic physical and emotional exhaustion"?
1600?!? Crush those fools with someone's swingin' manhood, pronto. And a theremin, if necessary.
I don't disagree with Cala in 335.
You have to figure out how to play on it without being seen as playing on it. Someone just seen as getting by on their looks is going to attract a disproportionate share of sharp daggers. That's why I was at pains to point out that there is an indifference curve, and it is not generally true that one would *always* trade smarts for looks; the marginal utility logic would work in the other direction for some people, depending on their resource endowments.
What the world needs is a youtube clip of a guy playing a theremin with his monster cock.
317: If you're going to represent in your cover letter that you're "easy on the eyes," you should probably go all the way and address it "Hey Baby, . . ."
...it has always been my ambition to work for an innovative and enterprising financial services company, and I firmly believe that I would be an asset to your team.
Damn.
The problem is that there really are a lot of wealthy, extremely good-looking and brilliant young academics. They just all go to Ivy Leagues where they don't teach much and have time to read tons and tons of books while sitting on the beach getting their attractive tans. I am not only pale and dumpy; I am pale, dumpy, and under-read.
Maybe it's different in English; we're a pale and dumpy profession across the board, and over on the philosophy job market blog where a couple dudes were whining that they couldn't compete with the Ivy Leaguer in their Armani suits it was pointed out to them that most of the allegedly rich Ivy kids wore sportscoats to their interviews.
The problem is that there really are a lot of wealthy, extremely good-looking and brilliant young academics
I'll accept that n > 0 on that, but a lot of? You must be stretching a definition on at least one of the parameters.
The idea being that philosophy grads can't distinguish between Armani suits and sportcoats?
348: Not a majority, certainly, but yeah, plenty of shockingly good-looking people go into English. I don't mean good-looking-for-English-profs, either. I mean gorgeous. Startlingly so. No, they mostly choose not to go to my PhD school, where our students are merely, for the most part, very handsome and pretty, in an earthly way.
The idea being that the number of philosophers who wear Armani suits is quite, quite small, and not equal to 'everyone who got the jobs I applied for becuz they were richer and better dressed.' (Of course, had they gotten the job, it would have been because the market had recognized their superior reasoning skills.)
I'll accept that n > 0 on that, but a lot of? You must be stretching a definition on at least one of the parameters.
I think you've misunderstood "brilliant." She means "shiny." I think that's a function of bodily secretions and washing schedules.
One of the best hiring stories I ever heard happened at an ex's company, which is a trade journal publisher. She's an editor, so she pretty much sat along for the hiring process and had some say, but never got to make the decisions.
Anyway, shortly before she'd joined the company, they had interviewed a guy who, when asked what his greatest asset was, shifted a little nervously in his seat and said "well, I don't want to sound like I'm bragging... but I'm really good looking. And it seems really helpful."
Now, everyone has the same reaction to this story in person, which is to lean back slightly a little amused and disgusted, and I reacted that exact same way. The ex hastily reassured me "But it's true! He was apparently really really handsome!". Everyone agreed. Sure enough, he got the job.
Then he quit a month later. Damned if they're going to hire someone really good-looking again.
I concur with AWB. Remember that there are very many literature grad students to start with, making it easier for the gorgeous contingent to be objectively sizable. And the field does definitely attract more than its fair share of beautiful, highly groomed fashion plates. As a pale, blotchy, frizzy frumpy type, I really should have gone with my first impulse to obtain my degree from a linguistics department.
making it easier for the gorgeous contingent to be objectively sizable
Also the brilliant and wealthy contingents, and indeed even the intersection of the three.
Damned if they're going to hire someone really good-looking again.
Dammit. See, it's always one flake ruining it for the rest of us gorgeous people.
Y'all can't see my Flickr, right? It's a shame. I'm really easy on the eyes.
Next Pittsburgh meet-up: railroad tunnel!
Oh my God, some of the women (and men) at MLA will melt your heart from thirty paces. It's a truly shocking spectacle. I'd like to hate them, but it's so hard. And they must know it, too.
I have a few regular-human-pretty friends who joke about wanting to use their looks as an advantage, and I think, "Who are you kidding? While lovely and charming and all of that, do you know your competition? These people are like the daughters of men and angels."
Also the brilliant and wealthy contingents, and indeed even the intersection of the three.
See, this is the part that I find implausible. If you have all that going for you, why go to grad school in English?
IME, that crowd gets its PhD's in Art History.
why go to grad school in English
Because they can afford to enjoy it. Why waste all those idle good looks on a difficult law career? Becoming a dancer or a painter is fine, but somewhat less intellectually elevated. Even Art History doesn't have the reputation for intense, dog-eat-dog intellectual discourse that we do.
IME, that crowd gets its PhD's in Art History.
Gawd, yes.
Anthropology, my field, has to offer at best a sort of rugged outdoorsiness, more often dumpy and awkward, but almost always with a quality of obstreperous befuddlement. Even in the Ivy Leagues.
IME, that crowd gets its PhD's in Art History. don't need to be called "Doctor" to get laid.
Though at my undergrad, Art History and Ark-Anth (Archaeology & Anthropology) were the two best looking majors by a long shot. In an especially cruel bit of scheduling, the lecture hall overlords put a couple of the math majors' required lectures right after Ark-Anth lectures, so as they filed out and we filed in, we got to see what we were missing and they got to see the freakshow.
Oh my God, some of the women (and men) at MLA will melt your heart from thirty paces. It's a truly shocking spectacle. I'd like to hate them, but it's so hard. And they must know it, too.
I have a few regular-human-pretty friends who joke about wanting to use their looks as an advantage, and I think, "Who are you kidding? While lovely and charming and all of that, do you know your competition? These people are like the daughters of men and angels."
I used to find the Beautiful People English crowd at grad school pretty hilarious. Whether as a matter of truth or sheer disciplinary prejudice, it seemed to me that their shitty job prospects and the ridiculous oversupply of grad students had created a kind of awful competition-for-distinction on all dimensions, ranging from the strictly intellectual, to I-dress-beautifully, to I-have-weird-hobbies. Sometimes it was admirable, in a horrifying way (e.g., people working on their second book while still in grad school), but mostly it was kind of appalling. Some of us indulged in a shameful amount of schadenfreude seeing these types go on to get their jobs at East Jesus State University.
I deny the existence of these gorgeous academics. Gorgeous for academics, maybe, but surely some of these people have jobs and/or webpages to which you can link and let us judge for ourselves.
Two of the older male faculty at Last Chance U. were very distinguished looking. One of them actually got bit parts on local TV commercials, etc., when an air of British class was desired. (He wasn't British but affected British shit. One of his roles was a high-toned butler -- British servants stand for class, I guess.)
I deny the existence of these gorgeous academics.
When I was moving from a certain Ivy in Connecticut, a friend of mine from American Studies came over to say good bye, while my place was being packed up by the movers. She stayed for 90 seconds because I was in the middle of everything, but the movers practically dropped what they were carrying and actually did stop moving around the apartment, so they could look at her for the duration. As soon as she left they were like, "So dude, do you have any other friends who are gonna come over?"
I deny the existence of these gorgeous academics.
Let's not confuse Ph.Ds with academics.
These people are like the daughters of men and angels.
Dude, the children of men and angels were massively hideous giants with demonic powers that had to be slain by the people of God. Did you not read the Book of Enoch?
As for the larger point of beautiful people in academia, I think what we're seeing is the academic's version of "pretty for politics." Hang around with lots of ugly people for a long time and anyone better-looking than average is bound to look gorgeous.
I deny the existence of these gorgeous academics. Gorgeous for academics, maybe
It's true, though. At least one of the third years here is objectively stunning.
As for the larger point of beautiful people in academia, I think what we're seeing is the academic's version of "pretty for politics." ... anyone better-looking than average is bound to look gorgeous.
I can also testify to gorgeousness among classicists, comparative litterateurs, and philosophers.
I can't speak to academia, but certainly in the pharma research industry, business development positions tend to go to beautiful young women first. And my observations have been that they tend to do better as well (all else being equal), probably because the decision makers they are mostly pitching to are 40- and 50-something men.
Did you not read the Book of Enoch?
That was right around the time the Reading Group foundered, so....
Mathematicians are totally not as awkward and ugly as you'd fear, except for a few who are.
Art historians are the best looking, followed by Film Studies and English people who do contemporary theory type stuff. Creative writing types can be pretty hot too.
It's interesting, in literature/English the relationship between period studied and cuteness is kind of an inverted U. Classicists are unusually cute for academics. But then people who study any period of literature from the middle ages through the late Victorian period are just as ugly on average as any other academics, but cuteness starts to increase again in the modernist period, and then skyrockets for contemporary theory people who don't really study literature at all.
It's actually more like a backwards J, because the contemporary people are cuter than the classicists.
I've clearly put a lot of time into thinking about and studying this.
The reps for medical supply companies and drug companies I used to meet were all not only very nice looking, but also had a very cheerful, friendly, approachable manner. Not the admire from afar type, more the good ole gal.
Check it out! Blume wrote an article about her conversational experiences with German experts!
In Last Chance U the nicest looking women were in Romance Languages, but if you weren't a Romance Guy you could just forget it.
379: Is this a joke or is Blume being outed?
Classicists are unusually cute for academics.
PGD is very compelling and insightful, I find.
I used to find the Beautiful People English crowd at grad school pretty hilarious. Whether as a matter of truth or sheer disciplinary prejudice, it seemed to me that their shitty job prospects ...
Hilariously, among all my Lit acquaintances, the one guy who went on to be successful in his field was fairly unattractive by any conventional standard.
I can also testify to gorgeousness among classicists
Ben, too. They are both so so smart.
Blume was putting up just as many PPG before and more points per minutes before she got traded to Miami. When you consider the effect on the salary cap? Not a disaster but still a mistake.
Art historians are the best looking, followed by Film Studies and English people who do contemporary theory type stuff. Creative writing types can be pretty hot too.
This example might be an outlier, but French history is not bereft of hotties.
Surely someone has crunched some frequency distributions for chili peppers on ratemyprofs.com?
Oudemia, I think they're fishing for Alameida. But there are two of them.
I've said this before, but I know two other classicists in the general area of Narnia, one in Sarawak and one in Northern Australia. Classicists are like Mexicans in that they must travel far to find work.
Yeah, I forgot about languages. That works too.
There's some common artistic / stylish thread in art, languages, film, literary theory that seems to be correlated with looks.
Blume is not Rebecca Solnit, but they stand in solidarity as perpetually patronized brilliant women.
Actually, come to think of it, while philosophy is a pale, pasty and badly dressed profession overall, that seems to be true of the tenured more than the tenure-track and more true of the tenure-track than of the grad students.
re: 369
That's really not true. There's a number of genuinely hot -- by any standard -- people around. At grad school level, definitely.
You guys really are very good at figuring out who isn't Blume.
Martha Nussbaum was hot until someone posted the Nussbaum-Sunnstein hot couple article.
In Chicago, aka the land of the blind where the one-eyed man or woman was king, the women in the art history dept were known for being pretty, but mostly for being tall. They were very tall and pretty -- except for my friend there who was short and pretty, but she worked on Late Antique stuff, so maybe she fit better with the classicists. There was no department where the men were known for being hot, no doubt both an artifact of sexism and of the fact that it was the U of C. I mean, the phil. dept. was a big old sausage party, but no one mooned over them.
Design and Computation drew at least one super-hot student (who's doing fascinating work, to boot).
So I don't think it should be surprising to find attractive people among the ranks of graduate students; youth and attractiveness.
I think Cala's 393 is more interesting: it's not that philosopher's don't start attractive, it's that the tenure process beats it out of them.
I threw that extra apostrophe in there just so nobody would mistake me for an academic.
That's really not true. There's a number of genuinely hot -- by any standard -- people around. At grad school level, definitely.
Stras's point about "Hang around with lots of ugly people for a long time and anyone better-looking than average is bound to look gorgeous" applies by default to residents of the United Kingdom.
399: That photo is indeed stupifyingly hot. She did come from an architecture background, though, which I think most will agree is also a fairly ample attractor of hotness.
400: Either the tenure process beats it out of 'em, or once tenured, they no longer care, or philosophers who came of age 15-20 years ago abided by a different aesthetic, viz., a dowdy one.
403: I dunno, oud. Po-Mo seems pretty insightful to me.
Martha Nussbaum was hot until someone posted the Nussbaum-Sunnstein hot couple article.
That was me.
I thought that piece made her hotter in a way. She's clearly one of those women devoted to pleasing her man, especially if he's a superstar academic. You know she'd feel honor bound to tear it up in bed.
Even public policy professors can be hot, though I surmise this occurs with about the same frequency as albinism in mammals.
404: I'm hoping it's one of the first two, because it would be hilarious to see Labs get fat and schlubby.
407: exception that proves the rule -- she's an attorney and doesn't have a Phd, just landed at the K-school between real world jobs.
Architecture definitely fits into the general "art=hot" rule, along with art history, etc.
366 reminds me of one factor I perhaps should have taken into consideration when choosing not to attend a certain grad school.
That photo is indeed stupifyingly hot.
Do a google image search on her name and you'll find a photo that's even hotter. Yeesh. Time to stop denying the existence of gorgeous academics, I guess.
The link in 379 is very good indeed. Have people read it?
She's clearly one of those women devoted to pleasing her man, especially if he's a superstar academic. You know she'd feel honor bound to tear it up in bed.
Tear what up?
Or do you mean "tear up"? Geez, whatever he wants, I guess.
Time to stop denying the existence of gorgeous academics, I guess.
Come on people, architects don't count as academics. They're creative artists, superior people. Haven't you read Ayn Rand?
You need to find a gorgeous person who chose to do heavy scholarship, trapped with books, numbers, or test tubes for a decade doing a Phd. They're rare but out there, keep searching.
Clown college gets by far the hottest students. They're driven to disguise themselves to avoid the wrong kind of attention.
Clown college gets by far the hottest students.
418: Like whatsername (Jocelyn?) in the Union of the Hideously Disfigured?
(Man, I haven't thought of that in 15 years. Crap. Has it been 15 years?)
Either the tenure process beats it out of 'em, or once tenured, they no longer care, or philosophers who came of age 15-20 years ago abided by a different aesthetic, viz., a dowdy one.
Or the folks who care about superficialities get fed up and go find jobs that pay better, or that have a different peer group. I can definitely testify that after a few years, dressing up for undergraduates starts feeling stupid.
406: PGD, I'm not the first person to explain to you that you're a sick puppy.
Peer groups matter even within academia. Like I generally noticed that pretty much all art historians seem to dress well, perhaps it's the culture of the discipline. They do study beauty, after all.
You know she'd feel honor bound to tear it up in bed.
Does Honor Court have jurisdiction if she just lies there?
423: no, no it's not.
Apo you may have some competition up in here.
PGD, I'm not the first person to explain to you that you're a sick puppy.
Hey, I resemble that! I will not yield to PGD or anyone else my title as the purveyor of the sickest speculation about Cass & Martha's sex life.
421: Well, having attended both the APhilosophicalA and the APhilologicalA, I've noted first hand that the philosophers are not nearly so well dressed as the classicists. If I had to guess, I'd say it may just be that classics as a field is probably 50% women.
As for dressing up for undergrads -- I do. And not because I'm trying to be adorable for them, but rather if I don't I look a little too much like them.
I will not yield to PGD or anyone else
I'm going to allow you to keep that purely out of altruism.
415: I'm still pissed I didn't get that t-shirt when I had the chance.
Ah well, I'll head by their warehouse again sometime.
I'm going to allow you to keep that purely out of altruism.
Apo, I'm talking about the *amateur* title here. You lost your eligibility when you joined the pro circuit.
My schwing is starting to deteriorate, though. Come my next birthday, I'm officially joining the Seniors Tour.
||
My beloved son had a tremendous time playing country music in Scandinavia.
|>
Your son looks a lot like you, John.
400: Either the tenure process beats it out of 'em, or once tenured, they no longer care, or philosophers who came of age 15-20 years ago abided by a different aesthetic, viz., a dowdy one.
There's evidence for the opposite process: better-looking people tend to do better career-wise, other things being equal. I would predict an interaction with the gender biases of the occupation. Anecdotally, I honestly think that there's a mild looks-threshold in philosophy: a sample of younger, tenured faculty in top departments yields many more better-looking women per capita than better-looking men.
Hotness in academia, huh? At least half of the men in my grad phil department were Very Good Looking. Of course it was a small department, and we were an unusually good-looking incoming class. Everybody said so. That's why we hung out with the political theory people.
(/smirk)
Several people look quite a lot like me, both among the Danes and in the band. He says that I'd fit in wonderfully in Denmark, except that beer is $9 / pint.
man, that was more work than it was worth
The cohort after mine was thought of, among grad students, as a "hot" cohort.
I honestly think that there's a mild looks-threshold in philosophy: a sample of younger, tenured faculty in top departments yields many more better-looking women per capita than better-looking men.
I don't quite follow: given that philosophy is male-dominated, the idea is that ... I'm not sure what the idea is. A gender-related point, in part -- if you're a better-looking woman, you have a better shot -- but what else about the looks threshold?
Bloggers who started in 2003 are way hot.
Yeah, your son definitely does look like you, John. Seems like a relaxed and happy guy, too. And he pulls great groupies:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/localcut/2365023306/
A gender-related point, in part -- if you're a better-looking woman, you have a better shot -- but what else about the looks threshold?
Yes. In general, if you're better looking you have a better shot, but in some cases this can be even more true for women than men. As I say, this is just a hypothesis based on observation. You could just think of it as a slightly stronger version of the uncontroversial claim that women have to be more careful than men when it comes to, e.g., choosing what to wear in professional settings. It's OK for the men to look like slobs if they are Very Smart, and indeed their slovenliness may even be interpreted as a manifestation of their brilliantosity. Not so for the women.
Bloggers who started in 2003 are way hot.
This seems intuitively obvious to me.
Maybe he'll settle in Denmark.
Because the 2003-ers where the last of the banner 2002 year.
See, to me he looks like my brother.
Bloggers who started in 2003 are way hot.
Word, cohortmate.
438: They might be more attractive than the also-rans in their day, but I think there is a definite dress-sense gap among generations. (As to the sexism thing, I am informed by the job market blog that women have a huge advantage on the market because of affirmation action keeping the white boy down, and also that men are better at analytical reasoning skills because it was needed to hunt tigers.)
Cala, women can use their sexual wiles to attract antelope close enough to kill. Tigers aren't very good to eat anyway.
affirmation action keeping the white boy down
WHITE MALES ARE THE MOST OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. POSSIBLY THE WORLD.
FIGHT THE POWER!
As to the sexism thing, I am informed by the job market blog that women have a huge advantage on the market because of affirmation action keeping the white boy down, and also that men are better at analytical reasoning skills because it was needed to hunt tigers.
(A surprising number of philosophers really believe this.)
372: I can also testify to gorgeousness among classicists, comparative litterateurs, and philosophers.
I can testify, Ben, that you are correct. About a year ago I was at a recruitment party for what I understand to be your department. I had previously thought neuroscience to be a fairly and attractive and funkyfresh field, but I and some of my companions felt that we certainly paled in comparison along the coolness and social facility dimensions, and in my head I also noted a surprisingly high proportion of megahotties.
Curiously, the groupies pictured in the link in 450 are adjunct professors of Molecular Biology and Operations Research, respectively.
Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, Blume, and Blume.
I occupy the intersection of the groups "lawyers" and "SF/F writers." I'd like to see anyone top that for sheer red-hot glamour.
The last two in 464 are maybe kinda slightly not worksafe.
I had previously thought neuroscience to be a fairly attractive and funkyfresh field
Oh, no.
Thanks to Tweety's reckless squandering of resources, we may now reach Peak Blume before comment 500.
Bloggers who started in 2003 are way hot.
I see no reason to dispute this.
Speaking of hotties in academia, the bird in 395 is pretty great.
467: may be true of the form of neuroscience that consists of economists using the MRIs in the psychology department to carry out experiments on game theory.
About a year ago I was at a recruitment party for what I understand to be your department.
What?
I had previously thought neuroscience to be a fairly attractive and funkyfresh field
I am informed by the job market blog that women have a huge advantage on the market because of affirmation action keeping the white boy down
I was actually told just this like 10 years ago when I was fretting about whether to stay the course. I was supposed to be encouraged by the thought that the market was probably better for me than I thought. Times haven't changed, apparently.
The second-from-the-top post at the blog linked in 473 begins: Sexing chicks is a very difficult task for naive people.
.
Heh.
471: A programmate shares an apartment with someone in Stanford philo. She said, "These people are throwing a party at my apartment. You guys should come over too." So we did.
And Sifu, I do in fact know a fair number of objectively good looking neuroscientists. I'm just not going to link the program's photo page (I don't know that it's even viewable off campus), because I'm classier than that.
476: You wouldn't know them, they're from Canada.
The problem is that there really are a lot of wealthy, extremely good-looking and brilliant young academics. They just all go to Ivy Leagues where they don't teach much and have time to read tons and tons of books while sitting on the beach getting their attractive tans.
Verily I say unto you, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Bold that 'sitting on the beach' part too, while you're at it.
Too be fair, I do intend to rope you into some sitting on the beach this summer, Blume.
or you could just write -o
i'm pro laconicity
a TRUE laconicist would say
"i'm laconic"
Or "words :("
I don't know why I didn't point this out before, but the photos of Blume at the formal were super hot. Gorgeous academic found.
You should see her relaxing at the beach with an enormous stack of books failing to teach any classes, PGD.
And when it gets cold, she lights a big pile of money on fire because, hey, why not, you know?
One must keep warm while thinking big thoughts.
The pale, smooth, soft skin revealed in the photos seems to indicate indoor lounging, probably on a chaise of some sort, while worshipful graduate students feed her grapes.
Actually now you're sort of grossing me out, PGD, but hey! That's okay.
Not grapes. Grapes are for state school students. Something like a mangosteen or $8/lb oggedfruit or pomegranates.
John's son is pretty good-looking. I suspect he's damaged beyond use, though.
505: we bought a Cherimoya this weekend! I'll be sure to peel it and feed it to her as she lounges.
506: My son is like me in some but not most ways. The two lovely Norse girls seems to like him fine.
He really enjoyed being in a community where a fair degree of kneejerk leftism was rodinary. A lot of the people he met were squatters from a famous community in Copenhagen.
Blume's prominent shoulders were extremely impressive.
That's so... nice of you, John. I think?
Blume's prominent shoulders
I use them to check people who don't seem to see me and refuse to get out of my way on the sidewalk.
Or who refuse to feed her cherimoyas. (I still like calling them oggedfruits.)
But it's so hard to shoulder check someone from a chaise.
especially one made by Liberator.
Dur, Blume, you get your research assistants (everyone has them at the Ivies, darling) to shoulder check people for you, or hold them down until you can shoulder check them at your leisure.
The shoulder fetishist gets no respect.
Unfortunately, all of my research assistants are occupied picking up my dry cleaning, arranging my flowers, and polishing my silver chalk holders.
Oh, and planning my shoulder workouts.
Research assistant lifts are terrific shoulder exercise.
Tiresome! Vexing! I regularly dismiss them, the lot of them, and get a fleet of new ones.
The scapulacracy's days are numbered. Be careful, or your assistants will rise up and divine their futures from your bones.
Damn damn damn. You think teaching Marx this semester was a bad idea?
Oh wait, what am I talking about? I don't teach! Ha ha ha!
A lot of the people he met were squatters from a famous community in Copenhagen.
Christiania?
Cherimoya update: those are good! And cool looking! And rather decadent!
Would that we could find them for less than $7.59 a pound.
