Personal Breakthroughs for 600, Alex

I've just had an epiphany--an epiphany about myself. (Incidentally, this is one of my essential characteristics of a critical thinker--the ability to continually discover new things about oneself.) Throughout high school and college, I received several Bs. Each time, as one would expect from an ordinarily straight-A student, I decided on a reason for the B--in order to internalize and deal with the situation, and thus move on from my perceived failure. I offer a list of the Bs that stand out in my mind, with accompanying reasons for their existence.

Chemistry (High School): I'm bad at science.
Pre-Calculus (High School): I'm two years ahead in math.
Gender and Society (College): I skipped some classes that resulted in missed quizzes, and I didn't like the professor.
History 105 (College): I never went to class.
Forensic Science (College): I'm bad at science.
Linguistics (College): Lingustics is hard, and I'm not really interested in it.
Anatomy and Physiology (College): I'm bad at science.

Notice any patterns there?

With the exception of any "I'm bad at science" answer, every reason on that list is completely valid. I was indeed two years ahead in math; I did indeed never go to class; Linguistics is indeed hard and uninteresting (to me, anyway). In retrospect, I got a B in forensic science because the course was heavy on entomology, which I am decidedly not interested in. I got a B in Anatomy and Physiology because the course was heavy on physiology, and I hadn't taken a basic biology course in about 5 years, and hence was rusty on central topics like cell function and replication, enzymes, the like. Straight-A students are monsters in that they expect to consistently excel; when I got a B--a B, for chrissake!--I assumed I was bad at something.

Except, not always. I didn't assume I was bad at math when I got a B in pre-calc; I rightly recognized that I was in an advanced course and so found it a bit challenging. I didn't assume I was bad at gender studies when I got a B in it; I rightly recognized that I didn't like the professor, and so skipped class as as well as failed to give the course the time and attention I should have. I just kind of blew it off. But these are things I've always known I'm good at; I've always been good at math, and since I usually got As in my major, I knew I wasn't bad at anthropology, just didn't care about Gender and Society. I also didn't decide I was bad at anthropology just because Linguistics is hard; I didn't dismiss an entire field just because one piece of it was hard for me.

So. Why do I think I'm bad at science? I'm clearly not. I did exceptionally well in classes on things like evolution, human biological diversity, research-oriented statistics,  and archaeology--all clearly science-based topics. As an anthropologist, I have regularly excelled in an field that relies on scientific methods to explore cultural and societal issues. Now, if I were really bad at science--the fucking foundation of most of the things I'm good at--how could I possibly be good at anthropology?

I can think of two possible reasons.

1. We did a lot more of everything else besides science when I was homeschooled; it was more a function of a homeschool environment lacking equipment rather than because my mom is a bad teacher or doesn't know anything about science. When I started public school, I had less of a science foundation than most of my peers; consequently, I may not have excelled as easily at science as I did in other subjects, leading to the belief that I was naturally less adept.
2. My culture tells me women are bad at science.

Both, maybe?

My point is, I'm not bad at science. I am currently a scientist, and I'm damn good at it. I decided against forensic anthropology because I thought I'd be bad at it, but I probably shouldn't have. Getting lost in an entomology class doesn't mean I can't be a forensic anthropologist; getting a B in Anatomy and Physiology because I lacked a solid cellular biology foundation doesn't mean I'm bad at physical science. Even if I'd taken an actual forensic anthropology course and gotten a B, all it would have meant was that I'd have to work a little bit harder at forensic anthropology than I had to at, say, the trigonometry course in which I earned roughly a 99% and learned absolutely nothing.

In Which I Ineffectually Rail Against Illogical, Uncritical Thinking

A 'discussion' just took place in my living room, between my father and I, within easy hearing of my 13-year-old brother. This 'discussion' began with my father denouncing the Westboro Baptist Church for their "abuse of free speech", as demonstrated by the whole "Everyone but us is going to hell", and ended with my father defending Sarah Palin's "right to free speech", as demonstrated by the whole "Don't retreat...RELOAD" crosshairs fiasco. I am also apparently not allowed to tell my dad what some people are saying, because he apparently knows exactly what everyone is saying at any given time.

Please, someone explain this to me; explain to me, as though I were a child, because I feel as though I must be since I fail to grasp the logic here, why one group of people is 'evil' when they express their hatred of other groups, but another group is 'within their rights' when they express violent desires and tendencies resulting from their hatred of other groups.

Seriously. Please. Explain.

If a string of murders occurred wherein the victims were Catholics and members of the military, you can bet the Westboro Baptist Church would be blamed for their indirect involvement. When a string of murders occurrs wherein the victims are abortion doctors and Democratic senators, the spewing of violence-themed hatred toward liberals, which includes abortion doctors and Democratic senators, as expressed by the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, is apparently completely unrelated.

Oh, and where are all the murders of pro-life advocates, Republican politicians, NRA members, and religious leaders that should be happening because, clearly, both sides are just as bad? If these events were really just the work of two mentally ill individuals, operating in a vacuum, acting merely by virtue of mental illness, completely unaffected by the culture and society in which they exist, why is it always the liberals who get shot?

P.S. If you disagree with the idea that rightwing rhetoric has affected and is currently affecting the present climate as well as the context of Dr. Tiller's murder and the Tuscon massacre, please read this before presenting arguments.

Clarification On "This Is Me Judging You", or, In Which I Abuse My Extensive Vocabulary

You may recall a post I made a while back regarding infertility treatments. Of recent years, I have fallen into the habit of being quite a bit more explicit than I feel I need to be; see, once you become an activist, you realize that those who oppose you or think you're unreasonable/hypersensitive or feel threatened by your position tend to assume you mean things, whether you meant them or not. By this, I mean that, on occasion, it is necessary to think out all possible ramifications of your statements and preemptively deal with any "misunderstandings."

Hence, upon further reflection (this is sort of thing my brain wanders into while I'm surveying.), I feel compelled to clarify my position.

I stand by what I said; infertility treatments are indeed a shocking waste of money, time, and effort. However, this does not mean I would support any sort of attempt to limit the ability of adults to do it. This is an important distinction. Although I disagree--vehemently--with your choices, and feel they ride the edge of societal ethics, I will fight to the death for your freedom to make them.

I would also like to clarify my exact position, and why this bothers me so much. (yes, it does bother me, a lot, in case you hadn't noticed.)

Infertility treatments illuminate contradictions now present in our culture in two ways.

• Firstly, when juxtaposed with society's pernicious belief that humans are not subject to evolutionary forces in the manner that other species are, as illustrated by those who feel that the solution to food shortages as a result of population growth is to produce more food*, the widespread yet unacknowledged acceptance of an unconscious, evolutionary-based drive to perpetuate one's genetic material reveals a dearth of logic, to say the least. 
• Secondly, it strikes me as odd that some proponents of infertility treatments blather on about how children are a blessing, children are wonderful, children are Jesus reincarnate and will make all of your problems go away, and yet, because they are also the same people who refuse to raise someone else's children ("We thought about adoption, but we just really wanted our own kids"), they do not give a hoot for the children who already exist in the world--the children who need to be adopted. 

So there you have it. A lot of big fancy academic words in the first one, but all I'm trying to say is that nobody stops to think for even a second these days. And if they did, they'd see the same glaring inconsistencies I do.


* Populations will always, always, always increase in numbers to match available food resources; the opposite is also true. This has been demonstrated many times with many species, and yet no one seems to believe it. Populations began exploding once we obtained a food surplus--i.e., formed civilizations.

Writing, but not NaNoWriMo-ing

The thing about NaNoWriMo is that it's a good idea, but completely not feasible for me this year.

I know, I know; claiming impossibility is a good way to get yourself a kick in the pants around there. "Just make time!" "I'm busy too!" "You can doooo it!" Actually, I can't.

My sister got married a week into November, and I'm not sure if anyone who hasn't ever been part of wedding planning knows how stressful and time-consuming it really is. There were days in that first week of the month when I literally did not have time to eat, much less write.

Furthermore, I'm not sure anyone who isn't an archaeologist knows how exhausting and time-consuming it is. When I'm in the field, I work 10 hours straight; 10 hours of hiking and filling out forms and digging and screening and well, it's exhausting.

But. I am writing anyway. I'm doing my own little version of NaNoWriMo--mostly in that I'm going for word count. Every time I sit down to write, I write as much as I can; when I hit 50,000 words, I'll consider that the end. Last night I churned out just over 2,000, which is a personal record and something I'm feeling really proud of. I might end up writing in the field; I might not. It might all be contained to 11p-1a time blocks (I've always written easily and well when everyone else is asleep.). It might not.

On "Progress" And "Progressives" And, Apparently, Evolution

Here's the thing: I do not like the "progressive" label. I disagree with the use of the term "progress" in any generalized fashion; by that, I mean that it's perfectly acceptable to say that you're making progress toward a substantiated goal, but ridiculous when you speak of a general political ideology as progress, or of technological changes as progress, etc.

I will now digress in order to illustrate my point.

I disagree with the term because it carries an inherent value judgment; it's like when people who don't understand evolution treat it like more = better--that a higher quantity of evolutionary steps is, by definition, synonymous with a higher quality of resultant organism.

Except, cockroaches have remained essentially the same for millions of years; so have sharks. It's not because these organisms have stalled in the evolutionary world, like they're stuck in some sort of useless limbo. To the contrary, it's because further evolution is unnecessary. In their current context (which has either not changed in millions of years, or has changed in such a way that their arrangement of traits didn't require alteration), they survive. It's pretty damn simple, so I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to comprehend. They're already as fit as they need to be; there's nothing "good" or "bad" about it.

Survival, and evolution, and fitness; all of these are, as always, deeply contextual. ("context" is a very broad term; it encompasses everything from physical environment to societal structure to who you're competing with for resources.) Humans have gone through quite a few more evolutionary steps than either cockroaches or sharks, but rather than endowing on us some sort of Evolution Trophy or something, this actually means that our context has changed more times throughout our history. See? Simple. We evolved because we needed to; cockroaches and sharks didn't evolve because they didn't need to. When you look at it that way, you could make the argument that humans have never hit on an arrangement of traits that allowed them to survive as well as either cockroaches or sharks. Who's inferior now?

Back to "progress."

As explained by Liss at Shakesville, I very much agree with the progressive viewpoint. Do I think these substantiated goals would be an improvement over the current situation? Absolutely. But changing things, and calling it progress, just because the change is for the better--contextually--implies that any past situations of your society, or any situations of other societies, are, by definition, lesser. But, of course, this ignores context. In 1776, did we need laws governing fossil fuel emissions, corporations, interstate highways, reproductive rights, blah blah blah etc.? Of course not.

Now, we do need laws regarding those things. But how, exactly, does acknowledging reality and attempting to deal with it automatically confer superiority, high-ness, right-ness, "more than"?

Seriously. I'm asking you.

As Liss is fond of saying, words mean things. You call yourself progressive, you mean that your ideals are superior and if you meet your goals, society will be better, higher, righter, "more than". All I'm saying is that if the "progressive" goals are met, society will be equipped for its current context.

That's it.

I Just Can't Vote For Ken Buck

There are these tv ads regarding Ken Buck, Republican Senate candidate for the state of Colorado. It's basically all these different people saying "I just can't do it--I just can't vote for Ken Buck." Well, I can't vote for Ken Buck, either--and here's why.

•  Obviously, he is "pro-life".

 Duh. Moving on.

• Ken Buck thinks ordinary people make extravagant decisions about their healthcare unless they have to pay for their wretched decisions out of their own pocket.

Seriously. Don't believe me? Check out Ken Buck's website (emphasis mine):

Federal policy should also encourage individuals to buy high-deductible policies and to establish health savings accounts. HSAs serve two purposes: They help people build up a cushion to help with medical expenses; and they introduce a greater level of price awareness among healthcare consumers. People can't make smart decisions about healthcare when the price is camouflaged by employer-paid premiums and low-deductible insurance policies.

Did you get that?

I will not tolerate a senator who

• Treats healthcare like the business it has clearly become, to the detriment of the people, and
• Thinks I'm likely to beg my doctor for ridiculous, expensive procedures because I just don't know any better.

Who do you think you are, Mr. Buck?

I mean, is there something I'm missing here? Some logical step I, not being burdened with the wisdom of politicians, have failed to make? Because, how could anyone in their right mind be ok with this line of thinking?

Does he mean that I will quit smoking if I know I'd have to pay for a lung transplant if I needed one? I guess that's reasonable, but let's keep going with that. Does he mean that I will avoid falling prey to a genetically inherited predisposition to diabetes if I know I'd have to pay for insulin if I get diabetes? Does he mean that I won't drive a car anymore, because I might get in an accident and I'd have to pay for the emergency room visit? Does he mean that I will make sure I'm not born male, because then I'd have a 1 in 6 chance of getting prostate cancer? Does he mean that I will make sure I'm not born female, because then I'd have a 1 in 8 chance of getting breast cancer?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Jesus Christ, I should never have been born! I have a 100% chance of death! If only I'd had an insurance plan with a high deductible; then I could have made the smart decision to abort myself before I even started growing arms.

Blogcleaning...[?]

I found a few unfinished posts in my queue, posts that were left unfinished not because they suck (quite a lot of my posts end up that way, actually.), but because they were too complex to perfect in a single sitting, and so I saved them, with the intention of returning to them at a later date.

As these posts were saved in April, and it is now nearly November, this is, indeed, a quite later date. However, I will be polishing them up and posting them. Soon.

Like you care.