Sensitivity

I've learned a lot about gender and "feminism" and consent and other branches of sexual ethics in the past year or two.  Maybe in a more focused entry, when I have the time to dig more thoroughly in myself and find the right wording, I will write about my beliefs.  But for now, I just want to write about something that happened earlier today.

I was at the campus bookstore, and saw a table full of Valentine's Day merchandise, mostly books, mostly red and pink and at least one with a blonde woman on the cover and something to the effect of "How to Pleasure Her".  Among the larger and more garish books, was a small, pocket-sized book, with a hard red cover with black text.  It was called "DON'TS FOR WIVES" (by Blanche Ebbutt) with the year 1913 at the bottom.

I had two reactions to this, in quick succession:

1. This sounds incredibly misogynistic and I am going to get offended!!!  
2. Okwait--why does it say 1913??  Ohhh, it's probably an ironic thing!  Someone must have found this publication and thought, "Wow, this is really ridiculous, I've got to show EVERYONE how ridiculous this is by re-publishing it!!"  

I read the preface (you can read it here).

Soo...  Marriage is by default difficult to maintain.  Marriage is the woman catering to the man.  Men are fickle and sane women can't understand men.  Oh, and men are unchangeable (women mush "reckon" with them).

Groaning, I read on...

The first DON'T was pretty ok:  "Don't think that there is any satisfactory substitute for love" (I've actually truncated this; Ebbutt continues, "between husband and wife.  Respect and esteem make a good foundation, but they won't do alone.")

But it turns out to be as dry as I expected.

Don't expect life to be all sunshine.  Besides, if there are no clouds, you will lose the opportunity of showing your husband what a good chum you can be. 

Because, the only reason anything should happen is for your husband's benefit.  Yup.

Then there are real gems, like this one:

Don't expect your husband to have all the feminine virtues as well as the masculine ones.  There would be nothing left for you if your other half were such a paragon.

By itself, the first half is pretty fair: "Don't expect someone to have qualities they don't have."  But there are presumptions behind these two sentences that just make me so angry sometimes!

(You can definitely argue that I am "reading too deep into this".  But if you argue with me, I probably won't argue back, because I don't like to argue over opinions and speculation about whether or not something is the case or isn't.)

1. You (and more importantly, everyone else) know what "masculine" and "feminine" are!  
2. "Masculine" is the opposite of "feminine".  
3. The purpose of the Wife is to service the Husband (it's not up to the husband to do anything if the wife is lacking in masculine virtues--but you can argue all you like that "maybe it's in the book Don'ts for Husbands" since this one is addressed to wives).
4. Someone who has both feminine and masculine virtues is perfect--and perfection doesn't exist, you silly goose (yes, I'm aware the literal interpretation should be "all the feminine and masculine virtues").
5. A Husband or Wife is a half-person, when you put the two together, they form a whole.  
6. A Wife's only purpose is to fill in her Husband's missing half (else there's nothing else for a wife to do).  

These presumptions make me angry because they're often simply not addressed.

I think this is why I like Math, by the way.  We state our axioms (axioms are ideas that are assumed to be true without proof--actually, they are typically impossible to prove, but that's a topic for another entry!).  For example, if we choose to agree with Euclid's parallel postulate (or any of its equivalent versions), then we get Eucliean Geometry.  If we choose to disagree, we enter Non-Euclidean Geometry (which encompasses hyperbolic and elliptic geometry).

The reason I don't like these presumptions is because they emphasise the differences between "men" and "women".  I think human beings have a lot in common.  (Whether that's more or less than what are different, is for another discussion).  I prefer to live in a culture that doesn't harp on dividing people into broad groups for, in my opinion, poorly-reasoned reasons.

(For example:  I kind of don't get gendered bathrooms.  Did someone think, "Men and women have differently externally shaped urinating apparati, so we should separate them"?  And if you give me the "safety" bullshit, I will call bullshit.  It is not in a "man"'s nature to assault a woman when left alone with her; that is a choice.  I don't actually know the history of the bathroom, so I can only speculate this reasoning.)  


...Argh, it's getting late.  One day, I will find time to address this more thoroughly and thoughtfully.


TL;DR:  Unstated and unaddressed presumptions about gender and gender roles lead to inequality and the division of humanity.  Also, misogyny often goes hand-in-hand with misandry (and vice-versa).  Also, I almost wish I didn't know so much about gender issues so I wouldn't get so...sensitive to it.  But it really is a subject that affects me very personally on an everyday basis.  And I'm sure it affects a lot of people more than they'd right now give it credit.

Gender

I don't wear a women's winter jacket.

Mostly, I wear an insanely warm sweater with a fairly genderless rain coat over top, and this keeps me comfy down to -30 with wind chill.  When it does dip below that, I swap the rain coat for the outer shell of a modular men's winter jacket.

I love that raincoat so much.  It's made with Gore-Tex (waterproof but breathable material), has a high collar separate from the hood, has big side pockets that can hold two pairs of gloves or a hat and a neck gaiter, and reaches down past my butt so I can sit on wet things if I really want to.

But after two years (almost three), it's starting to wear; the black outer layer is starting to fray in some permanently creased places, showing the tan Gore-Tex beneath.  So I've been keeping my eye out for a new winter jacket (or at least, a new piece to add to my modular winter jacket system).

I happened to be at MEC (who, coincidentally, also made my raincoat) and saw a parka on clearance--but only the purple ones were reduced.  It was a good price, and seemed of good quality!  But something about buying a women's winter jacket seemed.... extremely unappealing to me.

There are some logical possible reasons for this.  Being short and a little stout most of my life, I found I fit men's clothing much better.  Also, I usually can't stand women's pants for their lack of usable pockets.  And I avoid wearing women's pants in winter because the material is often thinner, and they're form-fitting, reducing circulation and making me colder (also, I can't fit long-johns under them!).  I dislike most women's shoes because they're impractical and uncomfortable and women's tops usually feel less substantial than men's (in both thickness/durability of fabric, and the amount of fabric!).

But I do wear women's clothes.  I don't find them extremely unappealing to wear, and I do buy them occasionally!  So what's the big deal about a women's parka?

First I have to define a word the way I want to use it.

Genderise
verb, transitive
1.  to assign a gender to something that does not have a biological sex; "he genderised his guitar, referring to her as Lola and handling her extra carefully"
2.  to divide a group into genders, whether or not its members have a biological sex;
3.  to market a unisex product differently for men and women; "she shook her head in dismay when she saw that toothpaste had also been genderised"

I live in Winnipeg, MB, sometimes referred to as Winterpeg.  I guess my thinking is that genderising something as practical as a parka is ridiculous.

A good parka usually costs around $100 (scientific wild-ass guess).  I usually buy my jeans for $30 or less; and everyday tops for $15 or less.  Understandably, I own more tops than jeans, and more jeans than parkas.  I don't have money to blow on umpteen winter jackets!  I don't have money to get "a jacket for every occasion!"  If it's cold, I wear a jacket.  If it's colder, I wear a warmer jacket or add a ridiculously warm sweater.

So if I only can afford to have one winter jacket, why, still, should it matter if it's genderised?

My first reaction was, "I don't want to go around letting everyone know I'm female."  I dug a little deeper.

I think it's that I don't like being identified by my gender in general.  I think I don't like being lumped together with half the world's population as if there's no variation among individuals.  My least favourite phrase to hear in a discussion is, "Because you're a woman!" as if having a vagina means I'm going to completely empathise with every other person with a vagina because I have a vagina.

Gender, in my opinion, is a rather poor and poorly-defined way of dividing a population into categories.



TL;DR:  I find wearing feminine everyday clothes to be fine because I can afford the variety in my wardrobe; but when I have to decide on an article of clothing that is less about fashion and more about practicality (and also costs a lot more), I'll spend the money on something I'm more comfortable wearing, which is typically not feminine.

The question of why genderised parkas bother me, still bothers me, but I feel I've explored a satisfactory portion of it today at least.

--Charlie


PS:  I bought the parka.  But it's also return-able!

---

Catchphrases

I was talking to my friend Gord the other day, and during the conversation, the topic of the Canadian Wheat Board came up.  Gord's of the opinion that it's about darn time the government dissolved it, it's doing more harm than good!  And I'm mostly of the opinion that if the farmers want it, then they should have it.  (This website lists some reasons to keep it: Stop the Steamroller.)

I said, "I don't know too much about why the CWB's a good thing or a bad thing; but I do know dismantling it this way is illegal."

Gord replied, "It's only illegal because there's a law that says so."

Talking to Gord often turns up one of these gems: a turn of phrase that's pretty meaningless by itself, but deployed with the intent of fundamentally shaking one's adversary's assumptions.  Or to otherwise make them pause (either for humour or to make a point).

But my opinion is that the conveyor of a message should "go half way", meaning, she should use commonly-enough accepted methods so that a "reasonable person" would be able to understand enough of the message to be willing to do the rest of the work to understand the rest of it.  This is how I was taught in art classes.

An art example:  I was painting a picture with a man standing by a window, looking out through it at a ball.  I wanted my audience to understand that the ball was very important to the message of the piece, so I made the window frame red, and it was the only time pure red appeared in the picture.  You can decide for yourself how successful I was.  My point: I made an attempt to use common techniques to get my message across.

A conversation example:  I've heard a Christian say, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."  This was meant to blow the atheist's mind and make him reconsider his assumptions.  Of course, it didn't.  What the Christian meant, I presume, was: "There is so much evidence for God all around that one would have to rely on blind faith to believe there is no god at all!" with the extra, "Atheists have a quality they claim to disapprove of in Christians, which makes them hypocrites and discredits their claims!  Their world view is full of contradictions!"

But without further explaining this loaded phrase, it's not a very constructive thing to say!  I don't think it's extremely likely for the atheist to want to pause to think, "Gee, being an atheist requires faith, eh?  Maybe I should reconsider some of the things I think!" in the middle of discussing the existence of a god.

Coming back to Gord...

I think what he meant by that was: "The law that says this is illegal is unreasonable in our current national context."  But because he didn't say this, I can't be certain it's what he meant!

In the end, it really does come down to personal preference.  I happen to be of the opinion that the best way to communicate with minimal chance for misunderstanding is to be descriptive.

---

Shrimp and Scallops Pasta

Happy 2012! I definitely won't make any sort of resolution to update on a regular basis! However, I think documenting my culinary adventures would keep me busy in between studying and prevent me from spending hours and hours on beating Chapter Five of Magicka.

On Friday, I had a sudden, wicked urge to make shrimp pasta.  I usually buy groceries from SuperStore, but the nearest one is an inconvenient both bus ride and walk away, so I usually go to the neighbourhood Safeway, even though it can get stupid-expensive there.

Thankfully, frozen shrimp were on sale.  Specifically, 400 gram bags of 51-60 count shrimp, raw "EZ peel", for $8.88 for two bags; which works out to $1.11 per pound.  Not a bad price!

I also caved in when I saw frozen scallops, which were not nicely priced, at $9.99 for about a pound.  But they were "on sale".  The lesson here:  "On Sale" does NOT always mean "nicely priced"!  Especially at Safeway!

But I digress.

I bought four bags of frozen shrimp and one bag of frozen scallops and went merrily on my way (read: also splurged on more things, but that's not important here).

At home, I looked around at what we had; because I didn't really have a "recipe" in mind.  So I began thinking of what would go well.  I eventually decided on linguine as my pasta base; with a thin sauce of butter, garlic, oregano, parsley and a splash of cognac.  No thickeners.

A quick search showed me how to defrost frozen shrimp safely.  I put a nice 3-person portion of shrimp and scallops into a medium Ziploc bag and squeezed as much air out as possible before sealing.  Then, found a large bowl, filled half-way with cool water; put the sealed bag in; and held it under with another plate and some weight.

I didn't really measure anything, I was going on literally gut instinct ("Hey Guts, how 'bout this much garlic?").

It turned out pretty well, actually!  The scallops were incredibly sweet, and nothing was overcooked!  There were only a few aspects I didn't like:

1. the shrimp was too salty; 
2. the pasta was a bit slimy;
3. the oregano didn't quite jive as well as I thought it would; 
4. the little pieces of garlic weren't picked up by the pasta, and I'd have to scrape the sides of the bowl to get at them.  

I read the frozen shrimp package.  Shrimp, Water, Sodium Tripolyphosphate (also called: sodium triphosphate).  That has to be why it tastes so crazy salty!  I read on.  

I really don't yet know how to summarise my opinion on food additives.  Maybe one day, I will find the right words and have good sources of information; but for now, I'll summarise it this way, being deliberately vague:  

Anything you put in your body causes changes in your body.  A simple thing like browning a potato (thanks, California) can make increase its cancer-producing probability.  But there are two factors important to me: what the thing does and in what concentration; and why I would put it in my body.  

For example:  I don't live somewhere I can get fresh shrimp easily.  So I buy frozen shrimp.  I don't have gobs of money, so I buy my frozen shrimp on sale or just the cheapest one if I really need it.  This usually means it comes from China, and contains sodium tripolyphosphate.  But I do have a certain amount of "trust" in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to not allow "reasonably" dangerous foods to consumers.  So I trust that the amount of additive is enough to keep my frozen shrimp "fresher", but not enough to cause harm in "reasonable" doses.  

However, I now have realised that there is another side-effect of sodium triphosphate, which is more immediately unpleasant:  THE SALTY TASTE.  

So today, when I decided to attempt shrimp and scallop pasta again, I made the following changes: 

1. rinse the shrimp after it has thawed, immediately before cooking (to minimise time for bacteria to multiply); 
2. use rotini instead of linguine; 
3. season with tarragon; 
4. measure things so I can better remember for the next time I make this!  

The idea of rinsing the shrimp is to minimise the salty taste (results to follow).  Hopefully the deep recesses of the rotini pasta would scoop up the bits of garlic so they are enjoyed more fully; and maybe spread out the oiliness of the sauce.  I cooked the rotini to al dente so they would hold up better when tossed with the sauce (method below).  This also makes a nice contrast in textures; softer toward the edges, slightly firmer toward the centre of the spiral.  And, I think tarragon goes better with the flavours in the dish.  

Shrimp and Scallop Pasta

(version 2)

Components: (loosely measured)

frozen shrimp and scallops (enough for 2 people; about two small fist-sized portions)

rotini (enough for 2 people; about two large fists), cooked al dente

garlic (I used almost a whole head, minus two cloves)

cognac, 1.5 ounces (1 large shotglass)

butter (maybe 2 Tbsp)

olive oil (maybe 1 Tbsp)

tarragon, big pinch (maybe 1 Tbsp)

Thaw shrimp and scallops by placing into a large resealable plastic bag and submerging in cold water .  If shrimps are notoriously salty, rinse (this can be done while frozen I guess).  Shell.  Rinse.  Drain.

Cook rotini to al dente.  Drain.

Mince garlic finely!  Put the oil and about 2/3 the butter in large skillet on medium heat, melt butter.  Add garlic.  Stir.

I like to use a silicone spatula to get into the edges and prevent the garlic from sticking.  This should be enough butter/oil to prevent the garlic from sticking, but if not, feel free to add more; stuck garlic means burnt garlic, which isn't what we're going for here.  Add a pinch of salt, black pepper, tarragon.  Slowly cook the garlic until fragrant; then turn up the heat to start browning them.

Add shellfish.  Stir to coat and keep shellfish moving (flipping).  Add cognac.  Keep cooking until shrimp are about almost finished turning pink (still a little blue in the thicker parts); reduce heat to low.

Add last bit of butter if needed (check consistency).  Toss in rotini.  Mix gently but thoroughly to trap the garlic bits inside the spirals!

Continue on low heat until shrimp are done (pink) and rotini thoroughly coated.

Serve warm.

My thoughts:

Shrimp saltiness:  Less pronounced than the first time; but definitely still present.  I wonder if there's a way to get rid of that taste!!

Scallops were less sweet this time.  I wonder if this was from having the shrimp and scallops in the same rinse water...  Will avoid that next time.

Rotini performed perfectly at their task of picking up the garlic and spreading out the sauce!  Plus I love the slight chewiness that linguine just can't give me.

Tarragon:  PERFECT with the scallops and cognac.  I think it would be perfect with non- sodium triphosphate shrimp, but that's speculation at this point.

Cognac:  I only measured it because it wasn't mine, and had to demonstrate how little I'd be using.  Honestly, it could have used more, but cognac is expensive (this was a gift, fortunately).

I'll be making this again!

---