Wednesday, April 29, 2009
the woman she described is not you. i've certainly met those women, but you are not it.From the people that don't actually know me, I think the reaction can be summed up as some measure of insulted on my behalf (thanks!) and insulted at the thought that single women are not coupled because they simply don't try hard enough to be -- and that their singlehood (which they feel she automatically deems problematic) can be solved with a little make-up, a cute skirt and a couple nights out on the town or a Match.com profile. For instance, one response I got:
i'm too angry after reading her column to write anything remotely intelligent or coherent about why she is a horrible human yet i feel how despicable she is with all of my being. i'm sure you have many, many more intelligent and insightful things to say about that. atterberry is a brainless wonder, pandering to a sect of people who want the return of the good old days when men were men and women knew their place.I think she falls into the "insulted" camp.
But my other friends were actually pretty bemused by the whole thing. Here's my best friend for the last 13 years (a dude).
This made me chuckle, especially since I don't see much similarity in anything the writer assumes and you, especially the 'don't go out and meet people' thing. What if there really are few decent guys to date? Is it anti male for me to say that I think there's a lot of men out there that I wouldn't want anyone to date because I've met way too many douchey guys that I couldn't even in good conscience recommend to people I know for a one nighter? There's always [hot guy friend who you had a flirtation with] but he's married now I think. Course, I could always let you know about [hot dude friend you made out with once]. Anyway, you've probably seen your mention but I got a kick out of it.Because, see, the thought that the article is about me cracks him up. Also, if you live in Boston, he is awesome and single, so, you know, it's real easy to find my email address.
Anyway, for everyone that emailed me and asked why I'm not responding on Jezebel, or why the site isn't responding, I repeat: Wendy Atterberry is attacking me in order to make a name for herself and promote her site, and I don't need to help her -- she's certainly provided me with zero incentive to do so, let alone to ever link to anything on her site again through Jezebel (and I'm about the only writer who has despite their general snottiness to our site and me in the past). It is hard to write interesting things on a daily basis that encourage people to read your work and link to it -- God knows I know -- but The Frisky has featured interesting pieces from good writers like Rachel Kramer Bussel and even Susanna Breslin ("caterwauling about the patriarchy" cracks aside) and I've not minded sending them traffic or encouraging people that read me to think about them and their work. I don't see as where I have any incentive to continue being collegial like that.
And, on top of it, when I've said that there's nothing else to do but laugh at a piece that offers advice to women like "always look nice" and "go out a lot" so that dudes will notice you and you can fulfill your life-long dream of living happily ever after with your Prince Charming, I meant it. You really have to laugh at that shit. I mean, if Wendy Atterberry is happily engaged, you know, good on her. I wish her no ill will in life, feel neither pity nor Schadenfreude (nor really anything) at her romantic situation or the fact that it makes her happy/sad/whatever --I don't assume that her happiness or lack thereof has any bearing on my own. As I've written about Jessica Cutler, Ann Althouse and Jessica Valenti: their happiness has no bearing on my own, and their marriages neither validate nor invalidate my life choices. That my willing contentedness with my singlehood (and my willingness to write about it) rather obviously doesn't inspire the same benign apathy in Wendy Atterberry, well, that says a lot more about her than it ever will about me.
That said, she did make my original piece my most-trafficked piece yesterday, so her attack on me just enabled me to justify to my bosses my lunch date yesterday with the fabulous Becky Sharper and two important pieces today that will not do great traffic but are, to me, more important than who is or is not participating in the Wedding Industrial Complex. So there's that, too.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wendy Atterberry, my pussy does not smell like fish. However, I'm pretty sure that it's had things done to it that are banned in some states... but that is a secret, just like the weapon he's been using.
Amusingly, this email was sent to me by a reader whose Google Adfeed presented her with Wendy's oh-so-thoughtful article while it presented me with ads about illegal fishing practices. I'd link to it, but then you'd all go read it and get offended on my behalf while presenting her with the pageviews she was so thirsty for in the first place that she felt it necessary to attack my personal life, dating practices, attire, make-up, attitude and whether I leave the house enough to really ever meet a man which is, of course, the be all, end all of a woman's life. Many of my friends fell off their barstools laughing when they read it on my Blackberry, so divorced was it from the reality of my actual life. It included the advice for ladies that they go grocery shopping in make-up to meet men, so it's hard to be offended at that shit.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Or, rather, what does it say about the IRS?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
When I would get into fights with my emotionally and occasionally physically abusive ex-boyfriend, he would often say to me, smugly, “If it’s so bad, why don’t you leave?” It was a rhetorical question, the intent behind it to remind me, as I was often reminded, that his treatment of me was my fault, that someone who was smarter or less emotional or whatever it was that day would command better treatment.I dated a guy like that, as I mentioned once before:
Several years later, during a fight with a boyfriend in which I told him he had to stop speaking to me in a certain way or else, he said, "Or else what? You didn't report your rape, what are you going to have the backbone to do to me?" I hung up the phone.I did not, however, leave. There were fights after that, fights during which he would resort to name-calling if he felt he was losing, fights I wouldn't back down from because I don't do fear (I think that's called "hubris"). There were other things, like being compared to his exes, being occasionally called degrading names during sex and being pressured into being "nice" to people I didn't like, that wore at me bit by bit. It was intense, it was destructive and the drawn-out end of it that had more to do with him wanting to achieve our official anniversary than actually wanting to be with me did a wallop on my self-esteem to the point that I avoided emotional intensity, strong-willed men and being true to my emotional and undiplomatic self for many years.
Anyway, it just struck me that I never coded that relationship, in my mind, as emotionally abusive, but maybe it was.
Anyway, it strikes me today, too, that this and the end of my last two relationships are why I have been operating my relationship-ejector seat rather hastily the last year or so. I mean, I don't think I did so in too much haste or that I should have stayed when confronted with dickishness, but still.
Like, perhaps, doing my taxes. But, to continue:
Scorpio persons tend to be somewhat retreating, pensive individuals, however they are usually quite self-confident, with plenty of personal power. Fear levels are low, which allows them to deal with great adversity and danger in the challenges of their lives. It tends to have a certain conservative element to it, especially with strong Saturn influences. Scorpio tends to be dominant in many situations.
They tend to be rather sure of themselves, sometimes a bit too much so. This may be problematic as, being a water sign, Scorpio's perception is influenced by emotions and thus may not be the best source for objectivity. They will nevertheless be pushed to question themselves deeply when an issue blows up in their face.
Although ambition is a trait often attributed to Capricorn, Scorpio is really the most ambitious sign in the zodiac, however this often gets exhausted through idle conflict, intrigue and lack of good vibes. A strong chart can push this through, although then they may well overdo it.This sign has a certain tendency to be disorderly in things that it is not intensely interested in.
This sign has some tendency for being heavy-handed and manipulative, a result of a naturally overbearing personality, strong desires and obsessive mentality. There is a certain tendency to do things in a rather controversial manner, as it tends to be poor in diplomacy unless Venus is strong in the chart. They feel things so intensely that it is difficult for them not to enter altercation. In its essence it can be somewhat rowdy and crude, but is often influenced by strong social pressures to moderate its outer demeanor. It tends to be demanding, sometimes even annoyingly so.I am an ineffective communicator, it's true. And the other chart says:
Some may find them somewhat tough to love, as there is a certain roughness in the Scorpian character. Similarly, they can be poor in awareness of hurt they cause some people, and be baffled when someone treats them badly, seemingly out of the blue. Part of this is caused by issues of ineffective communication. Nevertheless, Scorpios can be amazingly protective of their close ones and be ready to go to extreme lengths for them.
Reputed to be the "most powerful" sign of the zodiac, Scorpios lead fate filled lives and have intense and dramatic personal relationships.Um...
Much to do with a Scorpio remains ever secret. Their eyes often blaze with feelings that words never express, and beware on the days or nights they hide their feelings behind dark glasses, there is likely to be a storm of some kind brewing. When you deal with a Scorpio you have to always deal with them on a psychic intuitive level. They often wear a mask. Too often they say "no" when they really mean "yes". They have contrary natures. Once they find true love they can be the most faithful dedicated of all partners but fall out badly with a Scorpio and you are likely to find they will never forget or forgive.I don't wear my sunglasses at night, but I don't tend to let things go, it's true.
Anyway, I swear I'm going to go do some work now.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
They came back with the rest of my stuff, but I still hadn't worn them until last night -- something about the memory of the cops fishing them out of my toilet that night, I suppose. (Fishing? Fishnets? I love a good dumb joke.) Last night, I grabbed them out of the drawer and texted my awesome friend Erica that I was putting on my party fishnets. And, party we did. These are now my party fishnets. Fuck history.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Instead, I'm listening to the rain on the roof of the bus shelter and on the street, contemplating whether it's appropriate to trust certain people, wondering why it is that I'm not invited some where tonight and yet knowing why. I should just work when I get home, I shouldn't curl up into the ball I want to curl up in and let it all matter too much but, oh, God, I want it to matter. I want to hide. I want it to matter more than the waves the humidity is imparting to my hair, or the numbness my toes are starting to not-feel, or the unadulterated breeze on the spot where I inadvertently ripped my stockings, or the fact that there is still no bus coming down this dark street.
I was a commenter on this site for many months before I was asked to guest edit in October 2007; I then half-wrote Crappy Hour for more than a year with Moe (and Spencer, Jason, Ana Marie, Latoya, Jill, Rebecca, Steve, David, Asma and Kay) and wrote sporadically (post-Wonkette-firing) from January until getting bumped to a regular contributor last summer. Between January and the summer, I played a lot in the comment threads with the other commenters because, being only partially-employed, I had the time to do so. That I don't anymore is far and away a function of the fact that I must sing for my damn supper and thus simply don't have time.
The way some of those people have turned against the editors since the days I first started commenting and feel it's their right to get people fired or make nasty personal comments about them has been disheartening. Today was a case in point. Some of the comments I saw on my Facebook news feed today were incredibly disappointing -- especially coming from people who had friended me. Like Dodai, between that and the emails and the final Tuesday comment thread, the level of "The editors are all shitty writers and nobody reads them anyway" that abounded among a certain class of commenter struck me as incredibly nasty and not particularly related to the issue of comments being (obviously) temporarily gone.
Anyway, so, I screencapped some of what I saw today. Some people were reasonable (Newt, like normal, was reasonable even in the midst of his grumpiness) but others were... not. But this was what I saw much of the day.
For the record, to correct the mistaken assumption a lot of people continue to make, no one at Gawker Media gets paid by page views any more (not that we did exclusively, regardless -- that was our bonus system to make up for low salaries). Even if Gawker Media did still pay its full-time writers by page views, some of us no longer write for them full time and thus do not -- except we can get canned if we're not bringing in any.
Anyway, I'm about to go delete some "friends" on Facebook.
That said, I was sad that so few people made any dick jokes.