On miracles and odd decisions

anigif_enhanced-13157-1412364097-6I walked into the building in less than a fully chipper mood this morning, said “good morning” to the first several students I saw anyway, and was rewarded with nothing but sullen stares for my trouble.  Well, fine, fuck ’em; I went into my office and started working on paperwork that had been building up over the last several weeks.

I apparently managed to create an aura of hatred and anger and evil so powerful that no one bothered me all day.  I spent from 7:30 AM to 2:00 PM in my office doing paperwork, completely clearing my desk of every single thing I had to do, and no one came in and asked me for anything all day.

I expect I will have to pay for that tomorrow, but hey, at least I’m not behind any longer.

In other news, I’ve decided I’m done with the Song of Ice and Fire books.  Oddly, it was the events on the show last night that made me decide I wasn’t reading any more of the books.  This makes sense, but requires a long explanation in order to make my reasoning clear, and I’m still angry enough about the show– a show I don’t watch, mind you— that I really am not interested in talking about it beyond the few short rants I’ve put on Twitter.  But yeah.  I’m done; those are out of my life now.

So that was my Monday.  How’re you?

REBLOG: OMG, Time Magazine- You’re So Cray Cray

I love it when someone else says things so I don’t have to. Although, sadly, my penis magic would probably mean Time would take me more seriously if I did.

Gretchen Kelly's avatarDrifting Through

I can't believe...

“Done, done, on to the next one

Done I’m done and I’m on to the next one”

-Foo Fighers, All My Life

Oh, Time Mag. You’re like, literally, so smart. I read your annual word banishment poll yesterday and I can’t even…

I love your witty and oh so patronizing list you publish every year. You’re so hip and cutting edge. I wait with bated breath every year to hear what the bastion of cool-ness has to say about words that no respectable Chick Fil A manager would ever utter again. Like, ever.

‘Cept this year you kinda ‘effed up. This year you (spoiler alert) added FEMINIST to the list.

And every intelligent equality-loving non-hater was like “Whaaat???”

I mean, for seriously, WTF Time Magazine.

Lemme clue you in. Equality. Bam. ‘Nuff said.

Imma quote you here “Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like…

View original post 845 more words

On school clothes (part two of two)

school_kidsTold you I’d get around to this sometime.  This is the second part of what I really hope is going to be only a two-part piece on school clothing; part one is here if you missed it the first time around.  Before I begin, I’m going to quote myself from the first piece.  This rule still applies, and in fact it applies more, because I’m more likely to trip up given the specific nature of this post when compared to the first.  So, without further ado:

Lemme make this crystal clear right now: women are not, under any circumstances, responsible for the reactions of men or boys to their clothing.  Period.  Point-blank.  If at any point in this piece I say anything that appears to contradict that statement, I should be called on it and I am wrong.

I’m probably gonna screw that up at least once.  I’m not kidding about you guys calling me out on it if it happens.  Do it.

I’ll start with a story.  I don’t feel like sagging pants was a huge thing when I was in middle school and high school, but it was certainly a thing that was around and that some people did. I have, in fact, one story about sagging pants that dates to seventh or eighth grade.

Actually, this isn’t much of a story:  one of the kids in my class was sagging, and the teacher’s response was to call him out in front of the entire room with the words “Mark, I don’t wanna see the color of your underwear.”  Now, she was a Japanese immigrant, so to properly enunciate it you have to say it with a Japanese accent and stretch out Mark into Maaahk.

It’s actually the quintessential “you had to be there” thing– but people I know who were in the room at the time still say that to each other every once in a while despite the fact that I haven’t seen the Mark involved since graduating high school.  I’m pretty sure he’s a pastor now, which is hilarious.

So let’s begin our discussion of sexism and gender in the middle school with what I’ll call the Maahk rule:  I don’t want to see the color of your underwear.  This is, refreshingly, a gender-neutral rule: it means that the boys have to keep their pants at their waists (and I don’t know if I pointed this out, but telling boys to pull their pants up and boys and girls to tuck in their shirts are easily my #1 and #2 uniform corrections, and they are miles above whatever #3 might be.) and it means that if the girls wear skirts, they have to wear them long enough that flashing isn’t going to be an issue.

If it were up to me, I’d simply ban skirts entirely unless a family could provide a bona fide religious requirement to wear them– if only because those families never also produce length-of-skirt issues.  Why?  Skirts are hideous, not in terms of how they look or the function they provide but because everything involved in dealing with them quickly becomes either unfair or creepy as hell.   Monitoring skirt length sucks.  The fingertip rule depends on how long a girl’s arms are, which seems stupid.  “Knee length” requires you to define where the knee is.  I have actually seen staff members (none male, thank God) require girls to kneel in order to determine whether their skirts are the right length.

Uh-uh.  No. Never.  Under no circumstances, this sucks and it’s shaming and fucked up and it should never ever happen in a school, particularly and especially if it’s a male staffer.  When I worked in the Catholic school I made it perfectly clear to both the principal and the pastor that there were no circumstances under which I was ever saying a single word to a student about the length of her skirt.  Period.  Surprisingly, I got no pushback on that.  Are there girls who just really like wearing skirts?  I’m sure there are.  I like wearing jeans.  Can’t wear ’em to work.  Too bad.  This is where the “professional atmosphere/this is your job” aspect of dress codes kick in.

The other problem with skirts?  Teenage and tween-age girls have a habit of growing.  Which means that a skirt that was entirely appropriate at the beginning of sixth grade might be oh holy shit short by the middle of sixth grade.  More on this in a bit.

So, yeah: the Maahk rule.  I don’t want to see the color of your underwear.  And if it were up to me, we’d just do away with skirts altogether.

(Alternatively, and I’m going to modify my own rules in the previous post: allow skirts, but require all skirts regardless of length to be paired with leggings.  The main thing is, I never want to get sucked into the skirt-length debate.  I’d much rather just ban the damned things.)

On to the other sexualizing aspect of dress codes: tight and/or revealing clothing.

(Actually, let’s get this out of the way first:  I don’t think there’s ever much of a reason to have dress codes before fifth grade or so.  If you do have a dress code before fifth grade, none of this should matter, because a nine year old in a sundress is not trying to attract male attention by showing her shoulders and you should stop being a creepy asshole if you think so.  Have a descriptive dress code if you like, but the idea that eight-year-old girls should have to worry about clothes being tight or revealing is ridiculous and if you are worrying about that yourself as an adult there is something wrong with you.)

Here are some reasons why a young woman might wish to wear tight and/or revealing clothing:

  1. It’s comfortable; to hell with what anybody else thinks.  As a fat man, I can’t relate to this, because it is impossible for me to be comfortable in tight clothes.  However, I’m willing to believe it’s true.   Aren’t I charitable?
  2. You want people to look at you.  True of many girls.  Also true of many boys, obviously, but in boys this rarely leads to tight or revealing clothes.  Important: it is okay to want to be looked at.  It just may not be appropriate for school.
  3. Picking a fight.  This is closely related to #2, but adds a level of aggressiveness to the whole thing.  There exists a subset of young women who appear to wear tight clothes  specifically so that they can bark “Why are you looking?” at the first staff member to challenge them on it.  In some ways, it’s garden-level predetermined insubordination, with a nice soupçon of creepiness and assholery to go with it.
  4. You have no idea that you’re even doing it.  And here, you see, especially at the middle school, lies the problem.

I don’t give a single shit about the “distraction to boys” angle of the dress code, folks.  Boys need to grow into men, and part of growing into a man involves learning how to not turn into a slavering halfwit every time a bare shoulder or a bra strap floats across your field of vision.  If you’re really concerned about the girls’ clothing screwing up the boys’ ability to learn, well, allow me to introduce you to a little thing called gender based education.  You don’t solve the distraction issue, assuming that is even possible, by corralling the girls.  You solve it, if you care to do so, by corralling the boys.

Also true: there’s literally no level to which women’s clothing can be controlled that will remove sexual distraction from teenage boys.  It’s fucking impossible.  Boys that age– probably girls too, to at least some extent, but I’ve never been a teenage girl so I can’t be sure– are perpetually distracted by sex.  It’s fucking unavoidable.  Much like Shaquille O’Neal, you cannot stop it, you can only hope to contain it.

Let’s talk about this picture for a bit, taken from Gretchen Kelly’s original piece about this:

tumblr_n4plbcsvlz1rtlw8ro3_1280

This is almost cute in its naivete.  I have thought at least four of those things.  I’ve thought at least one of them this week.  Shoulders and collarbones, ladies, are awesome.  This look?  Insanely sexy:

1666527_Lookbook-10-23

Note both a shoulder and a bra strap.

But anyway.  I’m getting– heh– distracted.  But here’s the point: teenage boys can be distracted by ridiculous things, and expecting the girls to be even a little responsible for them when they are barely responsible for themselves is offensive on a number of levels.  You cannot allow male distraction to determine female clothing.  It’s fucked up and wrong and it needs to stop.  If you’re seriously concerned about it, go gender-based and get the sexes separated entirely.  You will still have seventh grade boys adamantly refusing to stand up every once in a while and will have to deal with the oh shit he has a boner moment as a teacher and decide what to do about it.  That would happen if you put him alone in a room, too.  Welcome to puberty.

(At this point, I realize that this post is likely to be longer than part one.)

(HA!  That’s a reason for boys to not wear tight clothing!  Boner prominence!)

The reasons that dress codes should worry about tightness and/or revealingness are Reasons 2 through 4 up there.  Why?  Because intent matters.  Because we do need to worry about people who are going to school for reasons other than academics– and intentionally dressing to “show off the goods,” so to speak, is a problem– and because one important aspect of dealing with particularly middle-school aged girls is that they frequently have no idea what they’re doing.  

This is where I start dancing around violating the “women are not responsible for men’s reactions to their clothing” rule, but I really do think there’s a difference here: if you’re wearing yoga pants because they’re comfortable, I don’t have a problem with you.  If you’re wearing them to get Billy in 3rd hour (or, for that matter, Jenny in 4th) to look at your ass, you’re deliberately disrupting the educational process– or at least aiming to– which is an actual and distinctly different problem.  This is not the same as demanding girls be responsible for boys’ reactions.    It’s expecting girls to be responsible for their own actions.  You aren’t at school to catch a boyfriend.  You’re at school to learn.

This may be a distinction without a difference, and I’m interested to hear people’s reactions to it.  It does mean that schools do have a non-sexism-related reason to police tight and/or revealing clothing– because it’s not as if you can institute a rule that if you think something is comfortable it’s okay.

And, honestly, I’m much more concerned with #4 anyway.  The maturity level of middle-school aged kids in a single cohort (and this is true for boys and girls) is incredibly variable, and can vary insanely over the course of the year.  Ask any sixth grade teacher, in particular: they are, by and large, teaching children in August and September and right around March they start getting caught making out and grabbing each other’s asses.  And frequently they have no idea that something is showing off too much chest or too much butt or too much leg.  Why?  Because those legs have grown six inches in the last five months, because those boobs weren’t there a year ago, and because what do you mean I have a butt.  Go into any middle school in America and you will find eighth grade girls who look like they’re ten and eighth grade girls who could walk into a bar and not get carded until they opened their mouths.  And just because a girl looks like she could walk into a bar and not get carded does not mean that she has remotely the emotional, physical, and, yes, sexual maturity to be able to deal with what has happened to her body over the last few years.

Schools take on a lot of responsibilities beyond reading and ‘rithmetic, guys.  One of them is trying to guide these kids through adolescence– trying to literally keep them comfortable in their own skins.  And rules about tight and revealing clothing need to be there, for two separate reasons: to keep the ones who legitimately are showing off from deliberately screwing up what is supposed to be a professional atmosphere, and to help those who have no idea from doing it accidentally.  At some point, somebody– and generally it needs to be a female staffer– needs to pull Susie aside and make sure she realizes that it might be time to think about a new pair of pants, or to call her parents and suggest that they do it.  Because it seriously might be that three months ago those pants fit just fine and she doesn’t realize that they look like they were applied with a spray can this morning.

True story: I had an eighth-grade girl walk up to me once while I was at the front of a school bus.  I had my hand on the top of the seat in front of her.  The girl dropped her entire rack– and she was probably a C-cup– onto the top of my hand and my arm.  She had no idea that she was doing it.  If you’re sitting at a desk, they’ll come over and lean over the desk to show you something, with, again, no idea what they may or may not be showing off.  If an adult woman lets me look down her shirt, or pushes her boobs into my hands, ten will get you twenty that she’s doing it on purpose.  Teenage girls don’t all have that awareness of what they’re doing yet; they may legitimately have no idea.  Or they might.  Either is a problem, yes?

Here’s the problem (he said, 2200 words in):  All of the last, oh, six paragraphs or so can end up in practice looking exactly like Girls are Temptresses Who Must Be Controlled to Save the Boys. As I said earlier, a distinction without a difference.  And I’m not into that.  I think it’s offensive and ridiculous.  But how do we insert a difference in there so that it’s clear that this is coming from a place where 1) the most important thing about being in school is the learning part, and 2) when someone breaks tight/revealing dress code rules, keeping the focus on education, and making sure that the kids are aware of how they might be perceived?

Enforcement, of course.  The focus should never be on making someone wearing inappropriate clothing feel bad about it.  I understand the reason behind, say, making uniform violators wear a bright pink 4XL I’m Out of Uniform shirt, but it’s not my job to make kids feel bad, and in most circumstances if a disciplinary intervention produces shame it’s probably one that should be avoided.

And it’s here, unfortunately, where I kinda run out of ideas.  While I don’t much like the Shame Shirt, the advantage of it is that it keeps the kids in class.  I don’t like the idea of keeping Jenny out of class because her pants are too tight or her shirt is too short (left unsaid so far: an operational definition of “too tight,” which is virtually impossible) and I also don’t like the idea of letting her know that if she doesn’t want to go to class all she has to do is wear a miniskirt to school and bam she gets to sit in ISS all day.

The best solution, it seems, is for the school too keep a lot of spare uniform-appropriate clothes on hand, in a wide variety of sizes, and require uniform violators to put those on.  Problem is, that’s expensive and difficult and those clothes are going to go home and not come back a lot, which is why most schools go with the Shame Shirt solution– or just locking kids in ISS– instead.  I suppose schools could go the same route my kid’s day care goes with and require parents to send a spare set of clothes to school with their kids, but that’s ridiculous on a lot of levels too, chief among which that– yep– they’re gonna grow out of the spare clothes too.

I’m stopping at 2748 words, guys, and I hope I’m not breaking my own rules anywhere.  Let me know how I did in comments.

On school clothes (part one of two)

school_kidsYou may have noticed– and hopefully you clicked through and read the whole thing– my reblog of a piece Gretchen Kelly did for Feminist Friday about school dress codes.  All in all, it’s a really good piece, and I popped up a couple of times in the comments to address stuff that I thought was worth discussing, all the while going I will not blog about dress codes in my head.

Well, fail, I guess, because here we go.   A couple of words of warning: first, I currently expect this to be a bit on the long side, and second, I think I’m probably just going to stream-of-consciousness the whole thing rather than try and organize it in a way that makes sense, because it’s Sunday night and this is a complicated subject and I still don’t feel like thinking as hard as it probably deserves.  So if you catch me contradicting myself or something doesn’t seem quite consistent, that’s why.  Like I said: complicated subject.  Feel free to point out what I got wrong in comments; I suspect that this might generate a bit of lively discussion, as Gretchen’s piece has attracted nearly sixty comments so far.  You should read her piece before you read mine, but I don’t necessarily plan on addressing her directly.

You guys know that I teach, or at least until this year I was a teacher.  What you may not be aware of is that every school I’ve ever taught at has at least nominally had a uniform.  I started off at a Catholic school, of the jumpers-and-skirts variety, moved to a Chicago Public Schools school that had a loose one, and then to my current district, where we’ve always had uniforms of some sort but of a looser definition than the Catholic schools do.

I have been to many, many faculty meetings about dress code in one way or another.  I have made an ass of myself at many, many faculty meetings by trying to address some of the questions that I’m going to raise here.  No one but me is ever interested in discussing them.  Which is stupid, because you shouldn’t have a dress code if you don’t have some idea of why you have a dress code.

Here, for example, are several reasons to have a dress code:

  1. Control.  You want to be in charge of the decisions of your students, and to let them know that you, as the administration and the teachers, are in charge.  One of the ways you let them know that you run their lives is by controlling what they are allowed to wear.
  2. Modesty/”Distraction”.  Note that this one is generally girls-only, and is closely related to #1.  Girls’ bodies are inherently dangerous, particularly to boys, and the best way to make sure that the boys’ days aren’t ruined by the girls’ bodies is to cover up the girls’ bodies as much as humanly possible.  It is critical to make certain that at no time is it possible for a girl bit to make a boy bit any more rigid than it ordinarily is.  Note that “distraction” is not always sexual in nature; things like pink hair or piercings can be deemed “distracting.”
  3. Professionalism.  Going to school is a kid’s job.  Adults are expected to dress in certain ways for their jobs; kids may as well get used to this idea right now.  Also something about promoting habits of mind to go with the orderly atmosphere you are creating by requiring everyone to dress similarly.
  4. Social leveling.  If the kids are all wearing the same thing, it makes it more difficult for the rich kids to show off their money or for the poor kids to look like they don’t have as much.  Also, conformity issues: it’s harder to single out kids for not joining the crowd and wearing the New Cool Brand (which they may or may not be able to afford) if everyone has to wear the same shirt.
  5. Gang affiliations.  This only applies to certain schools, obviously, but if you have a gang presence in your neighborhood frequently you want to do your best to make certain that kids can’t outwardly display gang affiliation.  This is hideously tricky; keep reading.

You may have already figured out from my phrasing that the two I have the most comfort with are #3 and #4; #1 is wildly unnecessary and #2 doesn’t always have to be problematic but very frequently is, particularly when you add religion into the mix.  #5 is essential if you’re in a school with a gang problem but requires an ever-evolving list of things to ban as the symbols and signs evolve.  Most of the school uniform drama-outbursts that make their way into the media is from people trying to shove the first two in where they don’t belong; for example, a chaperone father being turned on by a prom dress and trying to slut-shame the girl wearing it.

In fact, lemme make this crystal clear right now: women are not, under any circumstances, responsible for the reactions of men or boys to their clothing.  Period.  Point-blank.  If at any point in this piece I say anything that appears to contradict that statement, I should be called on it and I am wrong.

See, nearly 800 words already and I’ve barely gotten started.

Anyway: your reasoning for why you’re controlling your students’ attire should inform the level of control that you’re exerting over that attire.  If you are interested in controlling your students, and control itself is the virtue, then you’re going to be worried about things like belt buckles and shoelaces and hairstyles and all sorts of nonsense.  You’re also setting yourself up for an immense number of fights.   If you just want your kids to look professional, then maybe the fact that Brittany has pink shoelaces on one shoe and green on the other isn’t a problem.

So let’s talk about how you control clothing.  There are two ways.  A proscriptive dress code is a thou shalt not dress code.  Don’t wear this, don’t wear that; you can wear this in this way but not in that way.  These dress codes tell you what not to do or, frequently, what not to show, and are often actually referred to as “dress codes.”  A descriptive dress code specifically tells the kids what to wear, and is less concerned with “nots.”  The most extreme version of this is the classic Catholic school uniform, where every boy and every girl in the building are going to be basically wearing the exact same thing, often bought from the same vendor.   These are often not called dress codes; they’re called school uniforms.

These things can bleed into each other, obviously, but the more alike the kids look when you walk into a building the more likely it is that you’re dealing with a descriptive dress code rather than a proscriptive one.

I don’t like proscriptive dress codes.  The reason: the more rules you have for what can and can’t be done, the more fights you’re going to have with your students, and every second of arguing about dress code is a second I’m not spending instructing.  Just for example: yoga pants.  I’m a grown-ass man, right?  And I don’t have a daughter, and my wife prefers to wear jeans.

I don’t know what the fuck a “yoga pant” is, I have no intention of learning, and I’m not about to waste my time arguing with a  twelve-year-old about whether she’s wearing them or not.  Kids become lawyers awful goddamn fast when they think their pants are capris and you think they’re yoga pants.  (Is that combination possible?  Hell, I have no idea, but one school I worked at officially laid down a rule that if the pants had rivets anywhere on them then they were jeans, regardless of color, fabric, fit, or any other consideration.  Rivets=jeans=against dress code, period.)

Any and every rule can be made obnoxious in this way.  For example: say you don’t want your kids dying their hair.  So you make a rule saying you can’t dye your hair.  Then Brittany, who was a blonde last year, starts the year as a brunette.  Do you make her go change her hair back to her normal color?  No, that’s ridiculous, and you’d have to ask her what her natural hair color is.  Maybe she was breaking the rules all last year!

Okay, so you modify the rule: you can’t dye your hair unnatural colors, because kids with blue hair are distracting.  You just made it against the rules for every black and Hispanic kid in your building to go blonde.  Did you mean to do that?  Or do you ban specific colors, and then get into bullshit about whether someone’s hair is mauve or turquoise or blue, and this specific shade of blue isn’t actually prohibited on your list of “unnatural” colors.

(The solution is to not give a fuck about hair color.  Yes, Damien’s blue hair will be distracting– for an hour.  So will his next haircut.   So will your next haircut.  I shaved my beard off once and was fending off questions about it for a week.)

I find that the best way to handle a dress code is to set general rules that are clear and easy to follow and to expect the kids to stick by them– if you make a rule, it is critical that you stick by that rule.  If not, get the hell rid of it.

For example, I see no reason at all to ever care about any of the following things:  hair, ears, noses, lips, feet, shoes, shoelaces, belts, accessories of any kind, including necklaces, rings, bracelets, or other forms of jewelry.  We once mandated that all students wear belts. It was pointed out that some kinds of girls’ pants don’t have belt loops.  Okay; we modified the rule that if your pants had belt loops then you had to wear a belt.

Can you guess what happened?  The kids started cutting off their belt loops.

This is fucking ridiculous.

And, see, again: I’m coming at dress codes from #3 and #4.  I want the kids to look reasonably clean and neat, because they’re at work, and I would like there to be some social leveling going on.  #4 never really works, but it does help a bit.  The kids just find other things to signify status with.  This is a particular problem with gang affiliations; you’ll discover midyear that all the kids who are 2-6ers have been wearing a rubber band on their left ankle or something like that.  Ban that, and they start wearing their collars a certain way.  You can never really get rid of it.

Here, to my mind, is how to do a dress code: either go whole-hog, like the Catholic schools, and specify a certain shirt, pants, belt, skirt, jumper, and type of shoe for every kid in your building, and then provide a specific local vendor who provides those items at a reasonable cost and vouchers for your families who can’t afford the uniforms, or go descriptive but simple, and don’t stress out about the things you don’t cover in your dress code.

For example, if I wrote my school’s dress code, it would look like this:

  1. Polo or button-up shirt with a collar (boys and girls).  Long or short sleeve, colors to be determined by the school.  Most in my area have settled on blue, with some allowing other colors.
  2. Dress pants.  Dress pants do not have rivets, are not made from denim, and are not form-fitting.  (Note: never ban a specific style of clothing. You will fight for years about what cut a pair of pants are or whether pants are “yoga pants” or “stretch pants” or “leggings” or “jeggings,” which I think might actually be a thing, and whether that matters.)
  3. In colder weather, a plain one-color sweater (define colors as necessary) may be worn.  The sweater must be one piece and not have a zipper.
  4. Skirts of XXX color may be worn by either gender.  Skirts above the knee should be paired with leggings of XX color.  (Skirt length rules are hideous and horrible.  I’d honestly just insist on everyone wearing pants all the time just to avoid debates about skirts.  This is the best I can do; I’ll get more into it tomorrow.)
  5. Shoes must have a back to them; IE, no flip-flops.  (I know I said earlier that I don’t care about shoes.  This rule could be rephrased as “Shoes should actually be shoes.”)
  6. Shirts shall be tucked in at all times, and pants shall be worn at the waist.  Shoes with laces should be tied.  Y’know, screw that last rule.  I mean, it’s true, but it doesn’t need to be part of a dress code.
  7. And that’s it.  I give no shits about anything else. Everything else is up to the kid.  Glory in yo’ spunk, as BB King might say.

That’s already 2000+ words, and I haven’t gotten into talking about sexism yet.  So I guess I’ll continue this later this week.  Maybe tomorrow, but no promises.

REBLOG: Think That Employee Harassment Complaint Is Too Stupid To Take Seriously? Just Write Your Check To Me Now.

My wife, a regular Jezebel reader, first alerted me to this situation a couple of days ago.  This response from PopeHat is well worth reading:


 

Last week some writers at Jezebel made a public complaint about its parent, Gawker Media:

For months, an individual or individuals has been using anonymous, untraceable burner accounts to post gifs of violent pornography in the discussion section of stories on Jezebel. The images arrive in a barrage, and the only way to get rid of them from the website is if a staffer individually dismisses the comments and manually bans the commenter. But because IP addresses aren’t recorded on burner accounts, literally nothing is stopping this individual or individuals from immediately signing up for another, and posting another wave of violent images (and then bragging about it on 4chan in conversations staffers here have followed, which we’re not linking to here because fuck that garbage). This weekend, the user or users have escalated to gory images of bloody injuries emblazoned with the Jezebel logo. It’s like playing whack-a-mole with a sociopathic Hydra.

The writers further complained that they had repeatedly informed Gawker Media of the problem, but higher-ups failed or refused to do anything about it. A couple of days later, the writers announced that Gawker Media had responded and was taking steps to deal with trolls barraging them with rape porn.

This complaint was ridiculed in some circles. No, I won’t link them. The ridicule seemed to be based on the propositions that (1) it’s silly to think that Gawker should be responsible for what some third-party troll is doing to its employees, and (2) it’s silly to be upset by that sort of thing….

Go check the rest of the article out.

 

In which people are dumb and I am a people

I just Tweeted nearly this exact phrase, but it’s still true: it’s nice, sometimes, to be able to deal with a piece of nonsense by just saying Bite me.  I kerfluffled yesterday a bit; this particular kerfluffle doesn’t specifically involve me but I’m seeing a lot of reaction to it:  Gee, a Slate piece says something plainly dumb and stupid (in this case, “adults should be ashamed to read Young Adult lit“) in order to act as bait for clicks.  What a surprise.

Real simple: bite me.  I could go longer, mostly along the line of you write about books for a living and I still read more in a month than you do in a year, or I’ll read what I want, but they all boil down to “Bite me,” so:  Bite me.

All that said, let’s talk about The Fault in Our Stars.

One of my students (an actual teenage girl) turned me onto John Green earlier this school year and I’ve read all of his major works, TFiOS first.  I had to specifically deny her a field trip (the fact that the book opened June 6th made that a bit easier) but I did make some comments to the effect of it’s possible that we might just somehow end up at the same showing at the same theater, somehow, because that happens.

I’m not seeing the movie.  I was into it for a while, but it turns out that the movie has ruined the book just from the trailers and I’m not super interested in giving it more chances.

Let me back up.

One of the interesting things about reading books is that you can create shit in your head.  Now, this allows you to selectively ignore certain details about books if you like; sometimes this ends up revealing things about you that you might not like– for example, all the outcry about Rue being black in The Hunger Games when Rue was, uh, black in The Hunger Games.  Now, I wasn’t bothered by Rue.  The movie wanna talk about is The Green Mile.

You remember that one, right?  Stephen King released it in monthly installments, they ended up casting living enormity Michael Clarke Duncan as John Coffey, and he went on to have a fairly impressive Hollywood career until dying way too young a couple of years ago.

John Coffey was black, right?  There was never any doubt about that, and my reading comprehension ain’t bad enough that I managed to miss that detail.  It woulda been kinda hard.  But John Coffey lives in my brain.

The actual visual of Michael Clarke Duncan– enormous, bald, blaaaack Michael Clarke Duncan– dressed like an escaped convict, cradling two dead white girls, in 1932, completely killed my ability to watch the movie.  Because John Coffey doesn’t survive that scenario under any circumstances.  Period.  It took the visual to drive it home just how ridiculous it is that they find this dude with two dead, naked little white girls and they’re all just okay, let’s bring him in and find out what really happened.

In Louisiana.  In 1932.

Nope.  John Coffey is shot to pieces and lynched on the spot and the movie’s ten minutes long.  Him surviving arrest is less realistic than his magical healing powers.  And quite possibly less likely.

Didn’t catch on to how ridiculous it was until I saw it, though.

Okay.  Back to The Fault in Our Stars.  Here’s the trailer, give it a watch:

I’ve got some issues here, y’all.  They start with the casting and they sorta spread out from there.

First of all, I don’t know where they found this kid to play Gus or who the hell he is– and I refuse to look– but were they casting for creepy motherfucker when they found him?  Because this guy reminds me of no one in the world more than Dylan Klebold, and I’m pretty sure mass murderer wasn’t the vibe they were trying to go for.  He may as well have “date rapist” tattooed on his face.  He’s creepy.

And then, from this man who scans “creepy” from the jump, before he speaks, we get lines like:

“You trying to keep your distance from me in no way lessens my affection for you.”

and

“All your efforts to keep me from you are going to fail.”

This is supposed to sound… romantic?  I think?  And I think maybe when I was reading it in the book it… succeeded, somehow?  But holy shit does hearing a dude actually say that, especially a dude with this guy’s stalker-ass sociopath’s flat affect, turn the line into an incredibly clear signal that says run, run far, and run now, and do not stop running even when you think you are safe.  

That’s– God, especially that last line– what somebody says to you right before you file the restraining order, girls.

And suddenly I really don’t want to see a movie that is supposed to make me celebrate these characters’ love.  NO.  He’s creepy and the movie should be about how she runs away and he accidentally trips into Mr. Wu’s hog pen.

Now that’s a movie I’ll pay to see.

Yes, this

Chuck Wendig appears to have disabled “official” reblogging, so I’ll do it unofficially with an excerpt and a link:

I understand that as a man your initial response to women talking about misogyny, sexism, rape culture and sexual violence is to wave your hands in the air like a drowning man and cry, “Not all men! Not all men!” as if to signal yourself as someone who is not an entitled, presumptive fuck-whistle, but please believe me that interjecting yourself in that way confirms that you are. Because forcing yourself into safe spaces and unwelcome conversations makes you exactly that.

Thing is, it is all men.  We’ve all pulled some bullshit of some variety or another at some point in our lives, and we’re all enmeshed in the sickness of our society.  No fucker is innocent, and I include myself in that.  It’s all of us.  And it needs to fucking stop.

In which something entirely unexpected happens!

middle-finger-poster-flag-6185-pHave you read yesterday’s post yet?  Of course you have!  You read everything I write, right?  Sure.  So you know all about the sexual harassment issues that blew up my third and fourth hour and then ate most of my prep.

Remember the bit at the beginning, the bit that I almost deleted on account of it was the Same Rant All Over Again and wasn’t entirely connected with the rest of the post?  The bit about how bullying is a Huge Fucking Deal until the very second the kids are best friends again and then oh, wait, we were filing formal complaints on each other?  Never mind.

Yeah, keep that shit in mind.

Today’s highlight involved confiscating a note from the threesome-wanting blowjob-denier in the first story, who threw the whole school into a tizzy and wasted several hours of the time of at least three different staff members by filing a formal complaint of bullying against two other students, one of whom was her ex-boyfriend and the other of whom was his best friend.

The note was passed through the second girl in the first story– the one who everyone was mad at because she supposedly started everything– to the non-ex-boyfriend, to be given to the ex-boyfriend.

Note that I barred the two boys from class today, hoping that a day without them would help to calm things down a bit.

The note was asking the ex-boyfriend to please please please take her back so that she didn’t have to give up on true love.

I took it to the counselor.

“I cannot deal with this without using words like idiot and moron, and I probably also cannot deal with this without pointing out in clear language to this young fool that this boy thinks of her as nothing but pussy.  It is therefore your problem.”

I have nothing else to say about my day.