starting to swim up out of the illness...

and here's the great, big DUH of the day; an article about a recent florida adoption ruling that was struck down. the ruling required women who chose to put their child up for adoption to list their sexual history in area newspapers, ostensibly to "find the father." to quote allison, "jesus h. baldheaded christ."


- posted by clare @ 10:22

 
hey, w- w- wait a second...
what about Afghanistan?


i'm the illest. no, really. i'm sicker than sick. iller than ill. haven't been this blah since the spell of bronchitis? pneumonia? still don't know what it was that laid me up two winters ago.

yuck yuck yuck yuck. i've been eating more phlegm than food these days. that explains why i'm not so hungry.

but enough about me... back to the world.

how about Kristof's commentary on women on the front line? huh? on the one hand, the man has a point. denying women the right to fight where and how the fuck they want to fight is similarly a way of denying them to the right to all of the benefits of full citizenship.

what am i saying??? being allowed to kill people is a benefit of citizenship in this country? i totally disagree with this at the same time.

i say, much less enthusiastically than adam, with a heavy heart (and even heavier head), and with a slight twinge of injustice: w00t.

drain, brain! drain!

p.s. i'm thinking that perhaps adam's "w00t" is not the exactly appropriate term to express my sense of outrage at this point. indeed, he has used the word to refer mostly to really amazing and nifty things that seem to be going on in his life. however, i can think of no other word that quite so thoroughly describes what i'm thinking at this point, be it as fuzzily negative as it happens to be. so, i say again: w00t.

p.p.s. by "fuzzily negative" i'm referring to the feelings induced both by the sinus meds slogging through my bloodstream and to my sense of moral and political injustice at this particular moment in time.

p.p.p.s. i have this thing with odd (as opposed to even) numbers. for as long as i can remember (and i believe this is true for ann, too), i have always needed to do things in odd numbers. OCD? maybe. superstition? perhaps. some innate instinct? possibly. but postscripts are particularly distinct manifestations of this bizzare inclination. hence my third postscript to this blog. i shall say no more.
- posted by clare @ 12:28

 
jobjobjobjobjob

every time i try to do "work," i get distracted and end up poking around for jobs instead. why is it so hard to find employment--doing something i actually want to be doing? i mean, i want to help re-structure the world, but i'd settle for an admin job in a small, grassroots-y nonprofit in greater boston...

in other news, i've been chattin' and thinkin', thinkin' and chattin' with transfeminist activist Rahne about Audre Lorde's essay "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" (in Sister Outsider Freedom, CA: Crossing Press, 1984. pp. 110-113). It started with Rahne's 28.3.03 posting, which made me think about... well, a bunch of things. how "the master's tools" as a credo doesn't necessarily work in all cases (e.g. queer folks reclaiming the word "queer"--that was a "master's tool," no? As Rahne noted, "while we may not be able to use the tools to dismantle the house we could certainly knock some fucking holes in the walls") and how white folks (myself included) seem to be throwing this claim around without placing it and themselves in some kind of context... for example, a new Ani song, Serpentine.

Rahne rocks. Rahne has a stage show at a place called "the Charm City Kitty Club." i think that this is the coolest thing in the world.

back to the job hun--i mean, work.
- posted by clare @ 14:42

 
there's an interesting slide show on the nytimes website (linked from this article) that depicts pilgrims at Karbala doing their individual and community thing(s). there's a lot i can say about this slide show, but here's one thing i've been thinking about since i heard a BBC report on npr yesterday:

in "post-war" Iraq, who should govern?

the BBC reporter i heard yesterday morning had been interviewing folks at the Shiite pilgrimage site. he had interviewed only men--i can't (oh, but i can...) speculate on reasons why only men were interviewed (perhaps he wasn't able to approach women? perhaps they were invisible to him, or not involved in the ceremonies?)--but the few whose interviews were broadcast said essentially that Iraqi people, particularly Shiite muslims, should be in charge of the country. Those interviewed seemed to want an Islamic state, similar to that in Iran; at the very least, they vocally denounced U.S. occupation. makes sense, no?

it makes sense that the people of Iraq want to govern themselves. it makes sense, at least from my admittedly biased viewpoint, that, ideally, leaders would be chosen via "free" and "democratic" elections. but what does that mean, exactly?

one picture in the slide show struck me particularly forcefully: the second photo in the slide show, which depicts people crowding toward a doorway, shot from above. if you look carefully, you'll notice that there are women wearing all black in this shot; they appear on the periphery of the scene, framing the edges of the screen. makes me think:

what about women? what about religious minorities? ethnic minorities? how will their interests be represented?

granted that i haven't been listening 24-7, but i've heard zero anything mentioned about, in particular, women and how their interests will be addressed in the new proposed "democracy." whose democracy are we talking about, here?

on the other hand, i'm wary of the way that western-based feminist groups have addressed the interests of women, especially in the third world. so, what, is the feminist majority going to wag their fingers again at the cultures in which Iraqi women are embedded, chastising them for wearing veils or adhering to certain norms? refusing to incorporate any kind of cultural context? but, again to the same old question, where do you draw the line?

i do believe that the Iraqi government belongs to the Iraqi people--but if the U.S. and the UN yank themselves out at this moment, whose interests will be served? and whose will be lost or ignored? of course, i don't believe that the U.S. should set up shop in Iraq and dictate the country. but i don't see the concerns of social minorities like women addressed.

?
?
?
?
?

MADRE is a resource to consider. although, i couldn't find much about involving women in the governing process.

if you're looking for a concise summary of the "who rules?" issue, this is a decent overview.

from the department of state's office of international women's issues, check out this totally spineless fact sheet and slightly stronger but still worthless talk by Paula J. Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.

and, finally, here is a useful article from the "international herald tribune" (a news source with which i'm totally unfamiliar up to this point) which provides at least some outline of what might be done, practically speaking.

hmm... hmm and hmm again.

- posted by clare @ 12:23

 
...i was just reading ann's website, and i was thinking to myself:

oh yeah??? try the PORTLAND public market!!!

heh heh heh
- posted by clare @ 12:00

 
i'd like to make up a little song about coffee. it'll go like this:

coffee coffee coffee
where do you get off-ee?
making me awake and then
leaving me alone again
oh

coffee coffee coffee
crueler than Qaddafi
you make my heart go pitter-pat
but i need peace! perhaps Sadat

could help me find a space between
insanity from the caffeine
and total boredom with the humdrum
beverages that leave me dumb, numb

coffee coffee coffee
the non-drinkers who scoff-ee
don't understand the moral pickle
workers daily paid a nickle!

coffee you're my sweet addiction
and i say with much conviction:

COFFEE you're the bane of me!
waiter, please, cup number three?

- posted by clare @ 10:59

 
i like to think that the things around me are more solid than they actually are. i'm not just talking about the "whoa, dood, it's all in your head" obviousness, but i like to have my days fit neatly into a particular space i've delineated as "good." perhaps this concept is best articulated by the line between one of the fundamental units of my life: the day.

(warning: there will be almost no political analysis of anything in the upcoming little commentary, so don't worry. i won't be connecting these thoughts directly to overarching structures of gender, race, class, or sexuality... much...)

i tend to conceptualize days as beginning in the morning when i wake up and ending when i fall asleep in the pm. which leaves a huge chunk of time in there existing between days, in the space just beyond my understanding of rational rational existence. things that happen in that space include: dreaming, random noises and events that transpire in the middle of the night, the just-before-consciousness point when i'm not quite ready to hop out of bed (usually marked by a cat chewing on my hair, or an alternative cat rooting around under the blinds on the windowsil near my head), etc. i tend to feel better when these intermediate happenstances are kept to a minimum--when i get the most, regular sleep, for example, marked by not-too-crazy dreams or no dreams at all.

and, i particularly dislike having any of the regular patterns of sleep disrupted. for example, i tend to feel a little insane when i stay up all night and see the sun rise again. the concept of two days being squished into what, in my mind, is supposed to be one day seriously musses with my already overtaxed, underdeveloped pea brain. anyone who has seen me on one of those mornings might have gotten a whiff of me going almost certifiably nutso.

but these most recent days have proceeded along, nicely fitting into the cells that march, line after line, in a neat row...

because, after all, life is like a spreadsheet. you (in this case, you=me) squash info, perceptions, ideas, little blocks of color and light, noises, thoughts, and other riffraff into these delimited spaces, forcing them into a language common to the folks around you. you format and re-format, sort and re-sort, add new formulas, re-think old formulas, and mess around with the content. another aspect of spreadsheets that is analogous to life is the fact that they are, indeed, finite. when you open a new spreadsheet and start entering data, it seems that the cells proceed in two dimensions, up and down, into infinity. but, if you've ever accidentally hit the Ctrl + End keys at the same time, you'll notice that each spreadsheet does, indeed, have a limit to the amount of data it can hold, somewhere far beyond the (in my case) slightly curved right-hand side of your screen... like so much death.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
creepy.

now, for the political content (to which i will return at a later date because it's time for me to leave work):

what happens when you're squashing other people's data into those tiny cells?
- posted by clare @ 15:30

 
the "sticks and stones" adage is 100% grade-A poop.

there's this silly little e-mail listserv my college started about the war in/on iraq. as you might have imagined, it has rapidly degenerated into an angry, aggressive name-calling, poop-throwing sandbox. makes me think that too many folks here are only slightly above ants on the evolutionary (and, judging by the level of discourse, intelligence) scale... i won't even bother to post some of the quotes in here. aside from the obvious copyright issues, they're just plain, well, stupid (i guess i'm guilty of the name-calling thing, too).

hmm... although, that fellow who spoke for common hour a couple of months ago, Dylan Rodriguez, was saying something about how this type of name-calling is actually ok. he makes a good point--that is, that heated debate stirs up the campus, makes people pissed off, and leads to action...

the problem is that i only see this discussion becoming a kind of vortex, when folks argue within this little listserv and nothing much happens outside of it. so, what's the point?

on the one hand, there *have* been some well-thought, well-articulated arguments for and against the war... mostly against the war, in my view. most of the pro-war arguments boil down to the following points:
--Saddam is bad, bad, bad. he has killed many people, and we're justified in removing him from power (no matter how many we kill) because he's likely to kill again.
--the poor republicans on campus are being underrepresented, politically squashed, and generally oppressed by the overwhelming liberal majority of a) faculty and b) students. woe!

to the latter point, yeah, it's tough having your privilege questioned. it's really quite rough being called to account for your political beliefs. finally, most of all, it's particularly painful to be coddled under the wing of the current political party (and, i would argue, hegemonic paradigm) in power in this country (and by "coddled" i mean "endowed with a more "legitimate" and "authoritative" [read: wealthy, white, male, and straight] voice by major news networks, to say the least...). sure, republicans and general right-wingers of all shapes and stripes deserve the right to express themselves and argue their points. i happen to disagree with the vast majority of these points, and i make no bones about that fact, but i also know that class discussions need to happen and need to happen civilly. my problem is that (i'm about to make a generalization here, but i don't completely agree with myself) my experience with self-identified "republicans" on campus is that they have been totally disrespectful of dissent, in general, and have resorted to the name-calling thing... why? i won't even get into that.

but, to get back to my point, maybe this kind of angry, spitting, name-calling debate is actually worthwhile. i'm struggling to argue why, but i think something to keep in mind is the notion that "civilized" debate is something that is narrowly defined along the lines, again, of privilege.

so, what does a healthy discussion look like? and what can i do when i get pissed off at these jumbo dumb-o arguments?

to answer the second question, i wish there was a way to harness the anger i feel at reading those arguments and turn it into more productive work. because all i feel the need to do is bitch out the folks who write such simplistic and disrespectful things. there's got to be a better way. maybe i'll make a website for folks who feel angry but feel it's pointless to bitch back.

to answer the first question... i don't know. perhaps i'll let it hang out there for a couple of days...


- posted by clare @ 11:57

 
clare having a little too much fun at work.
- posted by clare @ 14:53

 
wowee, monday again. here's what's going on in my little brain:

invisibility is the hallmark of privilege. that is, what do i take for granted as, for example, a white person? what do men take for granted that women must struggle with? what do straight folks simply expect that queer folks must fight for?

the last is perhaps the most obvious--for me, anyway. the right to be considered moral, upstanding, *people*. for example, if gay folks are denied the right to marry, it's a way of denying us the right to participate as full citizens of this country. the same is true of the military, as much as i disagree with the institution and all that it represents & perpetrates. the first keynote speaker at the conference i attended last weekend argued something to this effect: any facet of life from which gay people are barred denies them the right to full citizenship. the right to be considered full *people*.

how does this apply to my whiteness? there are the obvious things, like the fact that i probably won't be followed around in stores if i'm lurking near the back. i probably won't be pulled over for DWB (driving while black). my immigration status will never, ever be questioned. my success in life won't be attributed to my racial status ("oh, you were only accepted to Bowdoin because you're a 'person of color.' you didn't get there on your own merit..."). there's a whole long list of "won'ts"--things i won't have to deal with because i'm white and, therefore, considered to be a legitimate *person*. and there's an additional long list of things i do benefit from, for example, seeing myself represented (to some extent) in advertising, TV, children's books, toys, and the jobs i hope to attain. after all, when someone in this country says "woman," i (or at least someone of similar skin tone) am who comes to mind.

and what about being a woman? here's a question: why don't they give out tampons and pads for free in bathrooms, like they give out toilet paper? seriously: why not? alternatively: why are there no "toilet paper vending machines"--is toilet paper somehow more necessary to personal hygeine than so-called "feminine hygeine products?" this is not to say that i believe tampons and pads and whatnot are the most environmentally-friendly, body-friendly, integrity-friendly items for women--indeed, there's nothing like a society that tells you to mop yourself up and smell like a rose garden--but, being practical, most women in this country use one or the other. so, why, again, aren't they free in public bathrooms?

i was reading the classic women's studies 101 essay "if men could menstruate" last week--i'm fairly sure it was written by Gloria Steinem--which is what made me think of this tampon example.

*****

i don't consider it a radical act to be hyper-critical of the world around me, especially when it is sending me very targeted, in some cases obvious, messages about who i'm supposed to be. about who is the default. and by "the world around me" i mean specific individuals--everyone, in fact--who agrees to uphold the system in place. i participate, to a greater or lesser degree than most, depending on the situation, because to not participate would seriously hamper my ability to function as a human being. because i'm not fully a *person* in some ways, where i am in others. in some ways, i have to try especially hard to convince people that i'm "cool," i'm "ok," i'm hip to the jive, i'm with it. and the people i'm convincing are--who? and for what purpose? depends...

this is all a big, simplistic rambling, marbles rolling around in my head, but i've been thinking of family these days.

partly because i'm reading Grandma Cal's book. partly because i visited with my folks and adam this weekend.

i'm wondering if my family thinks i'm a tad extreme. i guess i should expect it, to some extent. i mean, i actively identify as queer and as a feminist. i question my gender, although i still identify as a woman. i worry that they perceive me to be a little crazy, when it comes to the level at which i criticize the things i see. and i worry that they see the things i write and think and do and say to themselves, "oh, that's just clare going a little nuts again. but that's her thing."

ok ok, i know they love me, and i care very deeply about them (i'm writing about them in the third person here, even though i know they read what i'm writing... ah well). i even brag about them to my friends. and i think about how luck i am and have been... increasingly fewer people i know had the kind of stable and supportive family life i was fortunate to be born into.

i guess i don't expect to convert them all to my causes. i guess i would just like them to consider where they're at in the world and stick up for people who aren't as lucky--queer people, for example, and people of color, and women, and people from the third world. because when someone makes a joke about gay people, they're talking about me. and when someone comments about "women" being this way and "women" being that way, they're talking about me, too. and when someone makes a joke about "black people," latinas/os, asian americans, native peoples, folks who happen to have been born into another culture, they're also talking about real people. and it's scary.

one final scary, scary thing that has been poking around up there in my mind. yes, i'm queer. and, no, we don't talk about it. how are my parents doing with that? do they have questions for me, two years after i, for all intents and purposes, "came out?" do either of them still disapprove? are they sad for me or worried for me? are they angry at me? are they happy that i am blessed to have found a partner with whom i share a respectful and loving relationship? are they worried about relatives and friends discovering that they have a lesbian daughter? are they ashamed of me? how do they respond when folks ask if i have a boyfriend yet? what does the concept of being "queer," "gay," and "lesbian" mean to them? are they scared of talking about my queerness? if so, why? and what might talking about it bring to our already strong relationship?

now that i'm thinking about it, i'm going to post a link to PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) in case they're thinking some of these questions and want some clarification. and they have my contact info, as well... more later...
- posted by clare @ 10:29

 
after a stressful but productive weekend, ahhh. it's monday. and i'm feeling a little better about things. i'm getting myself back on a regular schedule, anyway, and that says something. although i know it's going to be a busy week, i'm oddly at peace with things for the moment. can't really explain the waxes and wanes of my craziness.

what's going on in the world? i feel i've been out of the loop for a long, long time, even though it's only been a couple of days. the war plods on, and the bad feelings keep a-brewin'. scary time when war becomes the normal state of affairs, although i would argue that it is that way for a large percentage of folks in the world, even prior to the war in iraq.

was watchin' something on the central park jogger last night--she "finally" revealed herself and talked with katie couric in an "exclusive" interview. i'm not sure how i feel about this whole brouhaha. on the one hand, what she experienced was horrible--no one should ever have their bodily integrity violated like that. on the other hand, i find the media coverage and the discussion around the whole even to be really interesting and telling about issues of race, class, gender, and sexuality in this country.

for those of us who aren't familiar with the central park jogger incident, here's a brief synopsis: fourteen years ago, a white, wealthy, educated woman was jogging in central park at around 9pm. she was brutally attacked, bound, beaten, and raped, and bled to the very edge of her life. i remember hearing on the report last night that somewhere around 75% of her blood was spilled on the ground... she was in rough, rough shape. she survived, however, and has regained most of her mobility and mental capacity, although a few scars and balance/thought issues remain.

also, some things to note about the case: almost immediately, a group of young black men confessed to beating and raping this woman, and they were convicted and sentenced to 13-30 years in jail (i might be off by a year or two, so don't quote me on that). although the "central park jogger" had absolutely no recollection of the incident, she did testify in court about the incident. also, there is some concern that the confession was coerced, emphasized by the fact that another man has within the last year confessed to commiting these crimes. i believe that some folks are calling for reparations for the incarcerated young men.

in any case, i wonder: what does it mean that this woman got so much media coverage? i am not, of course, arguing that she shouldn't have--i'm just thinking that it's interesting that:
1. some folks' response to this all was "why was she out jogging so late, anyway?" which is, in my opinion, tantamount to saying that the beating and rape were the jogger's fault. why *shouldn't* women be allowed to go any-friggin-where they want to at any hour of the day or night and feel perfectly safe? indeed, i understand that that's not reality--that it's generally not all that safe to be out alone at night, if you happen to be a woman. but why are we telling women to hide away when we should be working toward making the world safer? take back the night marches...
2. in the interview last night, katie couric mentioned that the jogger had been diagnosed as anorexic, and the jogger herself admitted that her 5x-a-week jog was part of this illness. will someone explain to me why, again, we aren't lambasting the media for perpetuating particular images of women and blaming *them* for this whole thing? not that i necessarily believe that's the whole truth or even the partial truth--anorexia, from what i've learned, is a coping mechanism as much as it is an issue of body image--but, in the sensationalist eyes of mainstream media, why wasn't that particular aspect of this entire incident latched onto?
3. of course, there's the obvious observation of all of this: millions of women are raped, beaten, or some combination thereof across the country--women who are poorer, women of color, women who are queer, younger women, women who wear skimpier clothes, all kinds of women--and no major media conglomerates say boo. unless there's something titillating or unusual about the circumstances. actually, i wish that *all* women who experience violations of their bodily integrity, no matter how small, would get some media coverage. impossible, of course. but where are these women's "exclusive" interviews with katie couric? don't they deserve shrines similar to the miniature one that was built for the central park jogger? i think i'm going to attempt to make up for it by building a shrine to the women whose experiences were never investigated, about which there was never a public outcry; women who were never send cards and letters for support, women who did not have the money to be able to afford a ritzy hospital in which to receive physical therapy, women who keep moving about their lives with these experiences scarred into their brains. because each and every one of them (men, too!) deserve the attention, prayers, and health care of this one relatively "lucky" woman.

hmmm


on another note, i was fortunate enough to attend the Safe Colleges conference in Medford this weekend. i always find this conference to be fabulous exercise in education and solidarity-building. one of the workshops i attended was on transfeminism, the intersection of transgender activism and feminism. i'm not quite sure how to summarize it except to say that gender is damn complicated. transfeminism relates to issues of health care, bodily integrity, respect, and hegemonic constructions of gender. (before i forget, here is another resource on transfeminism)

i'll be doing some more writing and thinking about this later. for now, here is an incredibly interesting paper written by the woman who constructed a previously-mentioned resource.
- posted by clare @ 15:05

 
bah! bah! i say. a great big BAH to it all.

i've been thinking lately. i'd like a little space for my own insanity. and forgive me for being a little self-centered at the moment, but another BAH to the demons who wag their fingers at me when i talk about myself.

folks are going through tough times right now. i know this, and i'm doing my best to be a support to the extent that i physically and emotionally am able. but i'm trying my best to hang on to some health for myself, too... and having a bit of a tough time. so, it's my turn to check out of numb normalcy for a bit and deal with myself. my turn!

i've been having a crappy week, not in the sense that "things keep going wrong, one thing after another," but in the sense that i've been in a deeper-than-foul mood lately. really angry. and part of it is hormonal--i know myself well enough to realize what parts of the mix are monthly, and the best i can do with these ingredients is to ride them like what now feels like a tidal wave and hope that something useful is produced in the process. like some writing. or a song. or a picture. something creative. but i'm getting away from my point.

this is me checking out for a moment. "go crazy?" "don't mind if i do!" --homer simpson. punching my timecard.

i've been thinking about the basics: finding work in greater boston for the summer, with which i've been having a particularly difficult struggle. finding a place to live. figuring out how to negotiate my need to get away from this place and my need to be with mel. you know, nuts-and-bolts things of living that are almost literally up in the air right now. and that's difficult and wears on the gears that turn my brain. they're feeling particularly squeaky and un-lubricated right now.

and, then, i've been feeling just ishy about the war stuff, how stupid, stupid, stupid everything is right now, and i'll put off delineating the various stupidities of the current international "situation" until a later date, when i feel slightly more even. sane.

and, then, other folks have been having issues, issues, issues. and issues on top of those issues. and i've been needing a little support for the past week. i was sortof hoping that the folks with issues would, you know, be there for some support of *me* for a little change, but folks aren't there. and by "folks" i really mean one folk in particular. and i understand the pressure that this folk is feeling right now, partly because of my need to get the hell out of a place in which i can't even survive economically, never mind culturally or socially. (p.s. makes me wish i could meet the devil at the crossroads and sell my soul in order to get "the hell out of" a job. too bad i'm not robert johnson)

so, before i punch back into some semblance of reality, here, let me just conclude by saying what i know: i know that i need some support my friggin' self right now, and i know that other folks are needing support, as well. so i'm just gonna take care of me for the time being so that i may be a stronger person in a while. and that entails taking the night off and doing some writing, maybe a little drinking, and maybe a little painting or some mindless sewing.

i'm looking forward to it already. i'll letcha know how it turns out.
- posted by clare @ 10:24

 
the day is slowly clouding over, and i'm in what can only be described as an "odd" mood. so odd, in fact, that i just typed "modd" instead of "mood," before i fixed it (see previous).

i have this tori amos (apologies, ann!) song stuck in my head, "little earthquakes," ya dig? there are times when all of the screeching that happens in that song, perpetrated by tori, really gets on my nerves. today, however, is not one of those days. the swelling of the song seems to match my mood and the weather. i'm waiting for something to start precipitating... snow, rain, who knows?

i'm in that weird pre-monthlies hormonal haze, so you'll have to pardon the relative insanity... or not. as a once-friend tina used to say, "whatev."

on my desk are two items that never cease to amuse me: the first is a pac-man mug from the early 80's. i used to have a minor obsession with pac-man--not the video game so much as the actual character himself. and i was duly excited when my gender was later represented in another version of the game, ms. pac-man. in fact, i used to have minor obsessions with things technological and imaginary, when i was little--robots, in particular, the norby chronicles by isaac and janet asimov, and transformers. i later discovered that most bookstores sported a sci-fi/fantasy section, and i remember poking around in those aisles as a wee lass, but the obsession faded as i approached high school... i wonder what happened.

i guess my interests shifted a bit as my belief in all things imaginary were summarily squashed by the Realities of Adulthood.

"once you pass its borders, you can never go back..." --babes in toyland

of course, now i read much more *mature* material... like feminist sci-fi! yeeahh! Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time and Sherri Tepper's Gate to Women's Country are a couple of neat ones.

anyhoo, the other item is a small plastic Spongebob Squarepants figurine my folks sent me for v-day. heh heh. i say again: heh heh.

where was i going with all of this? ahh... who knows. more instability later...


- posted by clare @ 14:47