Fresh salmon from Good Eggs, waiting to be roasted with cherry tomatoes, lemon, peppercorns, and a small drizzle of honey.
Delicious and crisp asparagus stalks from the Mission Community Market.
Crispy hot potatoes (roast with rosemary, thyme, smashed garlic cloves, and a bit of olive oil. Both dried and fresh spices work nicely.)
Beautiful greens!
Decilicous basil ranch dressing that my lovely cousin brought home to us.
“Remember the feeling you get from a good run is far better than the feeling you get from sitting around wishing you were running.”
- Sarah Condor
Sheryl Sandberg is one of those women who has an intimidating veneer of coolness. I sort of have this idea that, were I to run into her in the working world, she would be polite and curt and maybe raise a single eyebrow because I have spill on my blouse or something. And then she would promptly forget about me.*
Lean In sort of bonked me on the head for having that notion.
I’ve always been a fan of feminism, so most of the arguments she makes are not new to me. However, they were well-researched and well-defended, which is always good. Sandberg also brings a level of businesslike pragmatism to the discussion which personally I enjoy. Many discussions of women in the workplace can revolve around what men are doing wrong, or what society is doing wrong, or what our business leaders are doing wrong. These are all valid concerns.
But I have no control over what anyone else is doing wrong. What I can control, however, is what I can do right. Sandberg encourages boldness and tenacity in female employees, who are cultured to be more demure and accommodating than their male peers. She also frankly acknowledges that being a successful female leader means that people are more likely to view you as cold and unpleasant.
Nonetheless, these are simply the realities that women have to face if they want to move forward into leadership positions, and I agree with Sandberg that there is reason to be optimistic. The more women who make progress, the less meaning shrew-like stereotypes will have, simply because now there are too many successful women to cram into that mold.
One of her most compelling arguments, in my opinion, was encouraging women to find a spouse who will be a partner to them, and to not automatically assume traditional roles. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the woman being the one to handle cooking, or decorations, or the man doing the yard-work and fixing poorly-timed plumbing issues….while there is nothing inherently wrong with that…there is something wrong with simply assuming those chores because of your respective genders.
Some men like cooking more than women, and some women have proven themselves surprising adept at purchasing a pluming wrench and unclogging all the drains (ahem, ahem). I feel like Sandberg’s suggestions in this department are spot-on, since, as she effectively argues, it is not big conspiracy against women, but a compilation of small compromises that inevitably causes a dearth of women in leadership roles.
*This last part is probably true. Sheryl Sandberg is a busy woman!
“Those who bring sunshine into the lives of others cannot keep it from themselves.”
- James M. Barrie
In Cold Blood is one of those books that you read not so much for the story, but to be a spectator of a slice of American history, however brief, in which Capote, the famously particular author, pioneered the true crime genre in the United States. Even if you agree with the (arguably valid) criticisms of his account, there is no denying that this book was a first.
Although I took the facts in the tale with the proverbial grain of salt, it was still a fascinating and invigorating read. Capote walks the line between romanticising and humanizing his anti-heroes, making them more interesting in print than they likely would have been sitting across the table from you. In a world where sensationalist accounts of terrible crimes are commonplace, his stark descriptions seem all the more chilling. He also, for all his flaws, never tries to exonerate or excuse the behavior of the killers.
The story did start to drag a bit while the men are on the run from the law, and I imagine a lot of speculation went into the chapters describing their road-trip. Nonetheless, it is an excellent and tightly wrought story, which makes it clear why Capote has become the icon that he is.
True crime is an interesting genre, because there is something inescapably and unflatteringly voyeuristic about pouring over the sordid details of someone’s murder. That was a living, breathing person, after all, real as you or I or anyone, and you’re essentially using this description for entertainment. I recall the mixed feelings I had when watching Bernie, Richard Linklater’s black comedy about the murder of a famously unpleasant Texas widow.
Overall, I’m glad to check some Capote off my list. I’ll definitely have to explore the movies that were subsequently based off of this account. Also, as much as I enjoyed the book, I’m glad some time has passed since I wrapped it up – there were several nights spent laying awake and thinking about home invasions. Yeech. Not a happy thought.
“If your knees aren’t green by the end of the day, you ought to seriously re-examine your life.”
- Bill Watterson
So, let’s say it’s Tuesday. And today on Tuesday I will be going to work, eating lunch at my desk, and then taking a walk at lunchtime and maybe getting a chai latte, even though I know it’s packed full of sugar and I probably shouldn’t.
Look at how sultry and bold Eva Mendes is, thanks to her shampoo.
And I’ll pass, let’s say Coach, on my walk and I’ll see some shoes that are cute, but would be more comfortable with a thicker heel and then it will occur to me that I would look great in those shoes. Like, at a garden party (I’ve never been to a garden party but I’ve seen them in the movies, and they have attractive people, champagne flutes, at least one person to offer comic relief and sometimes light flirtation). I would wear the shoes at at garden party and I’ll be a bit thinner at this party then I am currently and my hair will somehow be thicker and I’ll be in a lovely dress and then I’ll run into a guy who scorned* me or something and they’ll instantly realize they’re an idiot and regret their decision.
That’s how it works in my head. Similarly, if I go to Walgreens at lunch to pick up some milk for my tea, I’ll realize while I’m there that the new dry shampoo they’re selling in the store is profoundly different than all the hair products I own, and even though I’m generally too lazy to really put product in my hair, if I buy this one then suddenly everything will be different and I’ll no longer ever have a bad hair day in my life.
If that happened (no bad hair days) my brain somehow connects that to happiness, and, presumably, other good things, as if people with perfect hair are also smarter, funnier, nicer, richer, and maybe speak a third language or something.
The point being, I’m totally a consumer. Even though I know – I KNOW – I know intellectually that buying new shoes or a new hair product is not going to magically turn my life around, I still have that narrative in my head. It’s very difficult to turn off. Frankly, I’m really not sure if it’s possible (that’s a whole other conversation).
What’s frustrating about this is that I really do dislike the idea of consumer-oriented culture. and I really dislike the idea of consuming products and thereby supporting this cycle when I’m not sure that it’s really good for anyone to have this globalized consumer ideal.
So, to compensate (that is, to marry the two halves of my brain, the one that wants to go to a garden party and the one that knows this is all stupid) I focus on the idea of shopping ethically.
I get really into the notion of supporting local brands and “green” products. It is undoubtedly the most self-indulgent form of armchair activism. And I think about it. A lot.
Toms are the ultimate armchair activist purchase. They’re trendy, they’re fashionable, they donate to charity! You can stick your foot into colorful circles! Community, yay!
I’m not the only one. Lot of people in San Francisco (where I live) are into this idea. No menu is complete here without a list of locally farms at the bottom, no household bereft of earth-toned cleaning products and at least one pair of Toms.
And yet, I can’t help but wonder at how these trends are divided. Over at Sociological Images, they’ve discussed how even something as simple as high-heels can function as a class distinguisher (my spellcheck says this is not a word. I’m choosing to ignore that.)
I can’t say I have any data, but I feel like much of this dialogue is contained to spaces where upper-middle class white people operate. (Well, I’m not a scientist or a pollster, so really, I never have ANY data. Just access to Wikipedia, and the ability to make angry YouTube comments.**)
In seriousness though, my garden party revenge fantasies (that just got darker) never involve me wearing a fashionable garment from Walmart – it’s always a funky dress from a local store. Probably a more expensive store. This line of necessity that I have in my head (you MUST look chic, you MUST shop ethically) pretty much guarantees an expensive wardrobe.
Similarly, my farmer’s market trips and locally sourced meat from Whole Foods and Bi-Rite aren’t what you’d call cheap. Although I’m not exactly wealthy, I do have a much firmer landing pad than most people, and have to wonder at the availability of this option to most others, and additionally, at the participation of different classes in this dialogue.
Do I only notice (generally white) yuppie 20 and 30-somethings talking about this because they’re the people I’m most likely to spend time with, or because they are they only ones participating in the conversation? Is this kind of activism beneficial, or merely avoiding the actual work of dealing with bigger issues? If it is only a few groups of people engaging in this concept, is that because we’re on to something everybody else doesn’t know about, or does everybody else know something and we’re all hung up on this silly idea? Or is it because it’s a conversation that is either not welcoming to different groups…or taking place in a space that other groups can’t engage in?
I’m not claiming to have the answers to any of these questions. But they’re all questions I’d love the answers to. I certainly hope that trying to only support conscious retailers will have a positive effect, and it stands to reason that is the case. I also hope that this is an effort that many people are participating in, and I’m only witnessing a small slice of it.
Additionally, I want to point out that (!) hooray (!) thrift stores are totally cheap, AND a non-wasteful use of resources, plus they fulfill that consumerist itch. That said, I feel that thrift stores do have some classist issues as well. Although my neighborhood is replete with them (we funky, y’all) if you’re living in say, suburbia, then shopping at a thrift store where the selection is likely to be dated, is really forcing to adopt a certain style. One that might be ostracizing in some cases, especially if it’s a certain look that you don’t feel defines you, in a world where people are heavily judged on their appearance.
Footnotes:
*I don’t actually think I’ve ever been really scorned, per se, but it works really well for this particular fantasy.
**I’ve never actually left an angry comment on YouTube. I’m not that person. Seriously. I have no idea who those people are. If you’re one of them, I’d love to hear the thought process behind that decision.
