Saturday, December 04, 2004
Date-busters for men
We all know what sorts of things make a date bad from a woman's point of view, with poor hygiene, sexual pushiness and talking only about himself topping the list... but what sorts of things make a MAN turned off on a date? (Men deserve some credit for complaining little enough about this stuff that it's not common knowledge, by the way.)
1) The woman not being ready on time; men HATE having to sit around while a woman makes mysterious alterations to her appearance, and if you're late getting ready for a date, which is when you're still on your best behavior, he assumes he's ALWAYS going to have to wait for you, and this is a grim notion to him. You know how long you need to primp and preen, so start early enough that you're sure to be ready when he shows up.
2) The woman can't make her mind up at dinner; it's not like this is your last chance to eat any of the foods on the menu, so pick a meal, ANY meal, and don't say a single word about the meals that you didn't pick, or act like you don't like what you ordered... whining about food is utterly foreign to the male half of the species, and it makes you look high-maintenance and impossible to please, which makes you not worth dealing with in his mind.
3) The woman won't eat real food; guys know that you're weight-conscious, but they don't want to take you out only to see you eating skinless chicken on a lettuce leaf... it makes them feel like poor providers, and like you're going to be equally lacking in appetite in bed. You don't have to order the fattiest dish on the menu, but DO pick out something that looks like food rather than rabbit chow.
4) The woman takes calls on her cell during a date; unless you're a doctor on call, or have a minor child, there's NOTHING important enough for you to talk about on the phone in mid-date, so turn it off and leave it that way.... otherwise, he'll see you, rightly, as rude.
5) The woman's home is guy-unfriendly:
A) She has lowfat, nonfat, reduced fat, sugarfree, low salt, and every other kind of food that tastes icky in the name of weightloss or health; there's nothing for HIM to eat, and, again, he's put off by a woman who doesn't eat real food.
B) She has too many cutesy things like stuffed animals, dolls, figurines and other stuff he associates with junior high girls; this makes him think that you can't relate to him as an adult (which, granted, is hypocritical when HE has a video game system and still eats Captain Crunch for breakfast), and those sorts of things just plain make him feel uncomfortable, not to mention un-sexual (aka unmanly).
C) She puts a CD on, or asks him to pick one, and all she has are sappy wah-wah-wah singers that make him want to cover his ears and scream to blot out their music; this makes him wonder how depressed and/or unrealistically romantic she is.
6) She ignores him to baby-talk to her pets; few men enjoy playing second fiddle to lower life forms.
7) When they've agreed to watch a movie together, she tries to get him to watch a chick-flick; it's NEVER ok to try to get another person to watch a movie you know they'll dislike, and to do so means you're either rude or clueless or both. A suspense movie, on the other hand, is a good choice, because it gets the adrenaline going without being too violent for the woman to enjoy.
Ladies, guys are usually easy to please; if he asked you out, he already likes you (unless it's a blind date, but with those you usually don't CARE), so all you have to do to keep him happy is avoid coming across as a selfish little girl living in your own world... yes, and let him toss a few moves at you, but if you don't want that, why are you seeing him in the first place? Show him some courtesy, try to make him feel comfortable around you, and let him see that you're easygoing and not a princess, and you'll have no problems... other than all the goofy stuff HE does, of course. ;-)
1) The woman not being ready on time; men HATE having to sit around while a woman makes mysterious alterations to her appearance, and if you're late getting ready for a date, which is when you're still on your best behavior, he assumes he's ALWAYS going to have to wait for you, and this is a grim notion to him. You know how long you need to primp and preen, so start early enough that you're sure to be ready when he shows up.
2) The woman can't make her mind up at dinner; it's not like this is your last chance to eat any of the foods on the menu, so pick a meal, ANY meal, and don't say a single word about the meals that you didn't pick, or act like you don't like what you ordered... whining about food is utterly foreign to the male half of the species, and it makes you look high-maintenance and impossible to please, which makes you not worth dealing with in his mind.
3) The woman won't eat real food; guys know that you're weight-conscious, but they don't want to take you out only to see you eating skinless chicken on a lettuce leaf... it makes them feel like poor providers, and like you're going to be equally lacking in appetite in bed. You don't have to order the fattiest dish on the menu, but DO pick out something that looks like food rather than rabbit chow.
4) The woman takes calls on her cell during a date; unless you're a doctor on call, or have a minor child, there's NOTHING important enough for you to talk about on the phone in mid-date, so turn it off and leave it that way.... otherwise, he'll see you, rightly, as rude.
5) The woman's home is guy-unfriendly:
A) She has lowfat, nonfat, reduced fat, sugarfree, low salt, and every other kind of food that tastes icky in the name of weightloss or health; there's nothing for HIM to eat, and, again, he's put off by a woman who doesn't eat real food.
B) She has too many cutesy things like stuffed animals, dolls, figurines and other stuff he associates with junior high girls; this makes him think that you can't relate to him as an adult (which, granted, is hypocritical when HE has a video game system and still eats Captain Crunch for breakfast), and those sorts of things just plain make him feel uncomfortable, not to mention un-sexual (aka unmanly).
C) She puts a CD on, or asks him to pick one, and all she has are sappy wah-wah-wah singers that make him want to cover his ears and scream to blot out their music; this makes him wonder how depressed and/or unrealistically romantic she is.
6) She ignores him to baby-talk to her pets; few men enjoy playing second fiddle to lower life forms.
7) When they've agreed to watch a movie together, she tries to get him to watch a chick-flick; it's NEVER ok to try to get another person to watch a movie you know they'll dislike, and to do so means you're either rude or clueless or both. A suspense movie, on the other hand, is a good choice, because it gets the adrenaline going without being too violent for the woman to enjoy.
Ladies, guys are usually easy to please; if he asked you out, he already likes you (unless it's a blind date, but with those you usually don't CARE), so all you have to do to keep him happy is avoid coming across as a selfish little girl living in your own world... yes, and let him toss a few moves at you, but if you don't want that, why are you seeing him in the first place? Show him some courtesy, try to make him feel comfortable around you, and let him see that you're easygoing and not a princess, and you'll have no problems... other than all the goofy stuff HE does, of course. ;-)
Friday, December 03, 2004
The irritating emailer
So I met a guy on a forum; he talked about some interesting experiences he'd had, and I, never knowing the chance I was taking, asked him some questions, and... now I'm knee-deep in emails from him. I don't have time to email my oldest and dearest friends on a regular basis, and this total stranger sends me up to 3 emails a DAY, and I don't mean one-liners either; I only answer one email per day from a person when they bombard me like that, and usually they get the hint, but this guy's about as perceptive as a rock. I finally went so far as to point out that I had a big pileup of emails from him, and his reply was that his server must have sent out some duplicates, as he was sure he hadn't sent out that many... but no, sadly, none of them are duplicates.
I know, I could ignore him or blow him off, but, aside from the fact that he's heavily involved in a forum I'm currently participating in, he's perfectly nice, and has been nice to ME, and he's lonely, and... and I just can't kick him when he's obviously enjoying having someone to talk to for the first time in ages... sigh.
It wouldn't be so bad if he was still talking about interesting stuff, but he's gotten into giving me endless reports on his home improvement and woodworking projects instead; my repeated comments as to my total lack of interest in that sort of thing have had no effect whatsoever. Worse, he goes on and on about how miserable he is, and about the countless qualifications he has for this perfect woman he's expecting to find on his front doorstep one day (despite the fact that he's homely and broke), and it's starting to really bum me out.
What am I supposed to say to him? "No beautiful woman who ever lived is going to be interested in you, so start asking out ugly ones"? Or, "If someone is nice to you for 10 seconds, it doesn't mean that they want to hear you go on and on and ON about the trivial details of your roof repairs and how you make boxes out of boards"? There's just nothing I can tell him that'll wake him up to the realities of the situation that wouldn't hurt him deeply; that might not be so bad if it would make him change what's wrong and get a LIFE, but human nature being what it is, he'd dismiss anything that a person who hurt him said.
All I can think of to do is send a general message on this topic out, and hope that it'll get passed around, and that karma will see to it that eventually someone WILL get through to him:
1) Beautiful people want to hook up with each other, NOT with the non-beautiful; a wealthy enough man can get a beautiful woman even if he's unattractive, yes, as can a glamorous type like a musician, but that's about it... sorry, fellas, but every man in the world is battling for the few beautiful women, and if you're plain-faced and broke you just don't have a shot. If you get to know a NICE woman, though, and her fine inner qualities make you care about her, she'll SEEM beautiful to you, I promise; ask out women who are on about your own level of looks, who WILL be willing to date you, and, when you fall in love with one of them, you'll believe yourself to be with the most beautiful woman in the world.
2) If you have, not only no romantic relationship, but also no friends, you need to take a hard look at yourself and see WHY; you're probably a wonderful person, but you're just unaware that droning on about how unhappy you are, how lonely, and about hobbies that your listeners have expressed no interest in, puts people off. Make a vow to yourself to stop complaining and boring people to death with your monologues, and start learning how to be a friend, and how to HAVE friends... and then, you can worry about the next step.
3) If you do fine with friends but fail with romance, you're clearly either having a personality change with potential dates out of nervousness, or you don't grasp how to treat a date differently than a friend; get some of your better friends to role-play with you, to help you learn what to say and how to act when you want to get to know someone better. Yes, it'll feel a little awkward and embarrassing, but it'll be well worth it if it gets you a relationship, right?
4) And finally; please, PLEASE, under NO circumstances should you EVER call or email a near-stranger multiple times a day, or even once a day; give them a BREAK, and spare them the excessive info about your life and feelings, so that long-term they can be a friend rather than someone who'll do a disappearing act or pick a fight with you out of desperation.
I hope this works; cross your fingers for me...
I know, I could ignore him or blow him off, but, aside from the fact that he's heavily involved in a forum I'm currently participating in, he's perfectly nice, and has been nice to ME, and he's lonely, and... and I just can't kick him when he's obviously enjoying having someone to talk to for the first time in ages... sigh.
It wouldn't be so bad if he was still talking about interesting stuff, but he's gotten into giving me endless reports on his home improvement and woodworking projects instead; my repeated comments as to my total lack of interest in that sort of thing have had no effect whatsoever. Worse, he goes on and on about how miserable he is, and about the countless qualifications he has for this perfect woman he's expecting to find on his front doorstep one day (despite the fact that he's homely and broke), and it's starting to really bum me out.
What am I supposed to say to him? "No beautiful woman who ever lived is going to be interested in you, so start asking out ugly ones"? Or, "If someone is nice to you for 10 seconds, it doesn't mean that they want to hear you go on and on and ON about the trivial details of your roof repairs and how you make boxes out of boards"? There's just nothing I can tell him that'll wake him up to the realities of the situation that wouldn't hurt him deeply; that might not be so bad if it would make him change what's wrong and get a LIFE, but human nature being what it is, he'd dismiss anything that a person who hurt him said.
All I can think of to do is send a general message on this topic out, and hope that it'll get passed around, and that karma will see to it that eventually someone WILL get through to him:
1) Beautiful people want to hook up with each other, NOT with the non-beautiful; a wealthy enough man can get a beautiful woman even if he's unattractive, yes, as can a glamorous type like a musician, but that's about it... sorry, fellas, but every man in the world is battling for the few beautiful women, and if you're plain-faced and broke you just don't have a shot. If you get to know a NICE woman, though, and her fine inner qualities make you care about her, she'll SEEM beautiful to you, I promise; ask out women who are on about your own level of looks, who WILL be willing to date you, and, when you fall in love with one of them, you'll believe yourself to be with the most beautiful woman in the world.
2) If you have, not only no romantic relationship, but also no friends, you need to take a hard look at yourself and see WHY; you're probably a wonderful person, but you're just unaware that droning on about how unhappy you are, how lonely, and about hobbies that your listeners have expressed no interest in, puts people off. Make a vow to yourself to stop complaining and boring people to death with your monologues, and start learning how to be a friend, and how to HAVE friends... and then, you can worry about the next step.
3) If you do fine with friends but fail with romance, you're clearly either having a personality change with potential dates out of nervousness, or you don't grasp how to treat a date differently than a friend; get some of your better friends to role-play with you, to help you learn what to say and how to act when you want to get to know someone better. Yes, it'll feel a little awkward and embarrassing, but it'll be well worth it if it gets you a relationship, right?
4) And finally; please, PLEASE, under NO circumstances should you EVER call or email a near-stranger multiple times a day, or even once a day; give them a BREAK, and spare them the excessive info about your life and feelings, so that long-term they can be a friend rather than someone who'll do a disappearing act or pick a fight with you out of desperation.
I hope this works; cross your fingers for me...
Thursday, December 02, 2004
An excess of white
Have you noticed that recent movies have an excess of white?
When they show someone's bed, their sheets are almost always white... although the only white sheets I've ever seen in real life are at hotels.
The towels are always white in the bathrooms... ditto the hotel thing.
In fact, the entire bathroom tends to be white... again with the hotel concept, what's WITH these set decorators, do they think we all live at Motel 6, that we'll find all this whiteness to be normal?
When they show a woman's panties under circumstances other than when she's wearing a lingerie set, they're always white; does any woman under 60 even OWN white underwear anymore?
A woman's socks will usually be white, although sometimes they're a pale bland neutral... like they probably wear in prison.
A woman's bathrobe (and often a man's) will be white terry... and here we are back to the hotel theme again.
Food is served on white dishes that come out of a kitchen that's either all-white or white with a little woodtone; I don't know WHAT to compare this to, as I've never seen it anywhere... maybe hotel kitchens are white?
White is about as boring and unappealing as a color can be, so what has possessed Hollywood to make every possible thing in movies white? Do moviemakers get a deep discount at the Hotel and Prison Supply Warehouse? Did some brilliant beancounter figure out that anything white could be re-used over and over in different movies and nobody would notice, because white just fades into the background in our minds? Or do they think that real colors will draw the eye and detract from the actors? Or is white easier to capture on film, or does it show better on the silver screen?
Whatever it is, I'm tired of it, and of the drab neutrals that make up most of the rest of the color palette of a modern movie; listen, Hollywood, the point of color film is to actually HAVE some color, so how's about you rediscover the vibrancy and excitement of red, purple and pink, and save the white for weddings and funeral flowers?
When they show someone's bed, their sheets are almost always white... although the only white sheets I've ever seen in real life are at hotels.
The towels are always white in the bathrooms... ditto the hotel thing.
In fact, the entire bathroom tends to be white... again with the hotel concept, what's WITH these set decorators, do they think we all live at Motel 6, that we'll find all this whiteness to be normal?
When they show a woman's panties under circumstances other than when she's wearing a lingerie set, they're always white; does any woman under 60 even OWN white underwear anymore?
A woman's socks will usually be white, although sometimes they're a pale bland neutral... like they probably wear in prison.
A woman's bathrobe (and often a man's) will be white terry... and here we are back to the hotel theme again.
Food is served on white dishes that come out of a kitchen that's either all-white or white with a little woodtone; I don't know WHAT to compare this to, as I've never seen it anywhere... maybe hotel kitchens are white?
White is about as boring and unappealing as a color can be, so what has possessed Hollywood to make every possible thing in movies white? Do moviemakers get a deep discount at the Hotel and Prison Supply Warehouse? Did some brilliant beancounter figure out that anything white could be re-used over and over in different movies and nobody would notice, because white just fades into the background in our minds? Or do they think that real colors will draw the eye and detract from the actors? Or is white easier to capture on film, or does it show better on the silver screen?
Whatever it is, I'm tired of it, and of the drab neutrals that make up most of the rest of the color palette of a modern movie; listen, Hollywood, the point of color film is to actually HAVE some color, so how's about you rediscover the vibrancy and excitement of red, purple and pink, and save the white for weddings and funeral flowers?
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Ginger vs Mary Ann
This latest ridiculous "reality" series, "The Real Gilligan's Island," got my husband and I talking about what sort of woman most men REALLY like... and, contrary to what most women believe, it's the girl-next-door type represented by Mary Ann, NOT the glittering perfection embodied by Ginger. Yes, a man will admire a beautiful woman even if she's glamorous and high-maintenance, but nearly all men prefer a woman who isn't so obvious, isn't trying so hard, and isn't so "done"... and they nearly all prefer short-shorts to an evening gown as well (most men would like their women to be able to get dressed up when the occasion requires it, yes, but I defy you to find a man who looks at pics of women in eveningwear for, um, "inspiration").
Want more proof of the appeal of the Mary Ann type? For many years, and maybe to this day, the most popular Sports Illustrated swimsuit model by far was Kathy Ireland, although there were many more glamorous, better-built, and objectively better-looking models... and, yes, many that had bigger boobs than hers. Ms. Ireland is about as girl next door as it gets; she looks like the prettiest woman that most men know in real life, or, more likely, the prettiest girl they went to school with, and this appeals to men more than chiseled cheekbones ever will.
And speaking of school; who do you suppose teenaged boys and young men fantasize about the most? We female types naturally assume that it's Miss November or some supermodel, but any guy can tell you that it's the girls in their class that star in the majority of their erotic imaginings; in fact, it's normal for guys at any age to fantasize about every female they know who isn't extraordinarily homely, so you can be certain that pretty much every guy you know has fantasized about you at some point (keep that in mind if there's a guy you want that you don't have the courage to go after).
And here's the REAL shocker about school; I saw a survey not long ago asking men what sort of fantasy roleplaying character they'd most like to have a woman be for them, and the winner by a long shot was, brace yourselves, "the sexy teacher." This stunned me at first, as there's nothing inherently sexy about writing on a chalkboard or any of the other tasks a teacher normally does (with the possible exception of a gym teacher-remember "Porky's"?), but, then again, any teacher who isn't ancient will probably look as good as most of the girls, and she'll be one of the adult women outside of a boy's family that he interacts with the most, SEES the most... so, it makes sense, although it's still a little mind-boggling.
So, women of the world, don't fret that you don't look like a supermodel; those men that DO want that type see women as objects to enhance their images and build their egos, and that's not a role any self-respecting woman would want... and, although most men would knock boots with that type of woman if given a chance, they want a regular woman to bring home to mom and bring up their kids. Yes, you need to be reasonably attractive to attract lots of guys; still, most guys find a wide range of appearances attractive, and as long as you're friendly and show a little skin without looking like you're begging for attention, you can get almost any guy to at least consider you.
So, be a Mary Ann and be proud of it; the girl next door will always be the one closest to a man's heart.
Want more proof of the appeal of the Mary Ann type? For many years, and maybe to this day, the most popular Sports Illustrated swimsuit model by far was Kathy Ireland, although there were many more glamorous, better-built, and objectively better-looking models... and, yes, many that had bigger boobs than hers. Ms. Ireland is about as girl next door as it gets; she looks like the prettiest woman that most men know in real life, or, more likely, the prettiest girl they went to school with, and this appeals to men more than chiseled cheekbones ever will.
And speaking of school; who do you suppose teenaged boys and young men fantasize about the most? We female types naturally assume that it's Miss November or some supermodel, but any guy can tell you that it's the girls in their class that star in the majority of their erotic imaginings; in fact, it's normal for guys at any age to fantasize about every female they know who isn't extraordinarily homely, so you can be certain that pretty much every guy you know has fantasized about you at some point (keep that in mind if there's a guy you want that you don't have the courage to go after).
And here's the REAL shocker about school; I saw a survey not long ago asking men what sort of fantasy roleplaying character they'd most like to have a woman be for them, and the winner by a long shot was, brace yourselves, "the sexy teacher." This stunned me at first, as there's nothing inherently sexy about writing on a chalkboard or any of the other tasks a teacher normally does (with the possible exception of a gym teacher-remember "Porky's"?), but, then again, any teacher who isn't ancient will probably look as good as most of the girls, and she'll be one of the adult women outside of a boy's family that he interacts with the most, SEES the most... so, it makes sense, although it's still a little mind-boggling.
So, women of the world, don't fret that you don't look like a supermodel; those men that DO want that type see women as objects to enhance their images and build their egos, and that's not a role any self-respecting woman would want... and, although most men would knock boots with that type of woman if given a chance, they want a regular woman to bring home to mom and bring up their kids. Yes, you need to be reasonably attractive to attract lots of guys; still, most guys find a wide range of appearances attractive, and as long as you're friendly and show a little skin without looking like you're begging for attention, you can get almost any guy to at least consider you.
So, be a Mary Ann and be proud of it; the girl next door will always be the one closest to a man's heart.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The organic issue
Until recently, I never had any reason to consider purchasing organic food; organic produce tends to be smaller and poorer quality, not to mention more expensive, and I'd never even HEARD of organic meat and dairy. An article in the October 2004 issue of Experience Life magazine made some interesting points that got me thinking, however:
"There's proof that organic produce is better for you. A review of 41 studies published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in 2001 compared the nutritional value of organically grown and conventionally grown produce. Researchers found that, on average, organic fruits and vegetables offer 27 percent more vitamin C, 21 percent more iron, 29 percent more magnesium and 13 percent more phosphorus than their conventional counterparts."
I figured that it was meaningful that I'd never heard any such thing before, and I was right; I wasn't able to find any impartial sites (ie gov't or scientific sites, as opposed to pro-organic sites) that backed this up, but I DID find several good sites that said something like this:
"Organic foods are not superior in nutritional quality or safety when compared against conventional foods, yet organics do have the potential for greater pathogen contamination. Thus, purchasing organically grown produce is not necessary for safety or nutritional reasons, according to the Institute of Food Technologists, an international, not-for-profit scientific society.
'Consumers need to understand that organic production does not mean pesticide-free and pathogen-free production,' says IFT food science expert Carl Winter, the director of the FoodSafe Program at the University of California at Davis. Neither organic nor conventionally grown foods are free from pesticides. And scientific evidence indicates that health risks associated with disease-causing microorganisms are far greater than risks associated with pesticide residues, which are negligible."
And this:
"Vaclav Smil, author of "Feeding the World: A Challenge for the 21st Century,'' says relying only on organic fertilizers would allow us to feed only half the world's people - or force the hunger-stricken to clear the world's remaining forests to plant more low-yield crops."
So, my disinclination to "buy organic" turns out to be correct... at least in reference to produce.
Although what this magazine said about food had by this point become HIGHLY suspect, I read on and learned:
"There have been no cases of BSE (aka mad cow disease) reported in animals that have been raised entirely according to organic production methods. Beef labeled "organic" cannot have received any animal byproducts in its feed; even the animal's mother must have been fed organic feed for three months before giving birth. To label beef organic, the farmer must trace an animal from birth to slaughter. Buying organic is a good way to avoid the risk of BSE as well as vote against the common practice of spiking animal feed with antibiotics and dosing cows with hormones."
That sounded good... until my husband and I got some organic steaks and found them to be gamey-tasting. We'll try it again, as every so often you get beef that isn't as good as usual, just like any other kind of food can have "bad days," and maybe overall it'll taste as good; I'm not willing to eat meat that isn't as good forever, though, so if it turns out that it takes modern methods of meat production to get good-tasting steaks, so be it. However, those of you who put beef in dishes with alot of seasoning probably couldn't tell the difference even if the taste really is significantly less appealing, so by all means try it if you can afford it.
The next tidbit was:
"Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is a genetically engineered hormone produced by Monsanto and designed to increase milk production. Unfortunately, it promotes significant health problems in cows, problems that are then treated with antibiotics. It also has questionable impacts on the milk that treated cows produce... Despite discouragement from the FDA and Monsanto, some dairy companies (both organic and nonorganic) do label their milk cartons stating their position against the use of rBGH. By law such labels must also include a statement saying that the FDA has found no significant difference between rBGH and non-rBGH products. The organic label on milk, cheese and yogurt ensures that no rBGH was used during production."
It might be worthwhile to pay more for non-rBGH dairy products to save cows from being given health problems; my husband and I are already paying more for local, high-quality dairy products because of the superior flavor, though, so the only new thing we're likely to try is the milk, as we only use it in cooking and the flavor isn't an issue... again, however, I'd recommend trying anything you can find if you're up for it.
Another important issue about dairy that they mention is:
"It's becoming easier, too, to find dairy products from pasture-fed animals, which are higher in cancer-fighting conjugated linoleic acid, beta carotene, vitamin E and healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Some people assert that milk from grass-fed cows has a richer taste as well."
I couldn't find anything "official" to back THESE claims up either, which shows just how suspicious we need to be about articles of this nature, BUT, it's a nice idea to let cows walk around outside and graze, and the cows that produce the dairy I eat DO get to graze (I've seen them in the fields myself), and their products ARE better, so... it's worth a try if you can find and afford it, as you'll probably get some good karma, and maybe better taste too.
The info on poultry was REALLY eye-opening:
"Arsenic is an approved feed supplement for poultry."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!! I checked it out, and discovered that this IS in fact a standard component of feed for poultry, as it allegedly fights disease and promotes growth; there's debate amongst various agencies and researchers as to just how much arsenic is in the meat of these birds, with some saying that the levels are unsafe... that's sorta scary, isn't it?
There's more grim poultry news:
"Conventionally farmed chickens are often pumped full of chemically laced feed and raised in cramped group cages that put four or more birds in a cage the size of a sheet of notebook paper, encouraging disease and cannibalism. Although use of antibiotics in healthy animals has been reduced in recent years, it is still common."
There aren't many creatures as stupid and mean as chickens, but... this seems excessively cruel to me. The good news is:
"Certified organic chickens are fed organic, vegetarian feed and allowed access to the outdoors. They are not treated with antibiotics or hormones."
Although I dislike chickens, I still think it's better if they get to run around outside, both from a health standpoint and from a karmic one; the difference in the lives of the birds is so dramatic that I'd even recommend spending significantly more to get organic chicken if you can afford it, because the more we spend on this more humane system, the more chicken "farms" will adopt it... and that'll make the price eventually fall.
A final comment about organic-ness that was NOT in the article: When we think of organic fertilizer, we normally think of manure, but far more common are fertilizers made of bonemeal and bloodmeal, which are exactly what they sound like, so vegans take note; the cows that provide the bloodmeal didn't voluntarily donate the blood, and the ones that provide the bonemeal didn't die of old age... these products come from cows that are slaughtered for their meat. If part of the reason you're a vegan is for no animals to die to feed you, you'll want to either buy organic produce exclusively from farms that you've verified use only manure, or just buy non-organic produce.
To sum it all up: If it's available in your area and you can afford it, give the organic beef, poultry and dairy a try; unlike organic produce, organic animal products DO seem like a better choice overall.
"There's proof that organic produce is better for you. A review of 41 studies published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in 2001 compared the nutritional value of organically grown and conventionally grown produce. Researchers found that, on average, organic fruits and vegetables offer 27 percent more vitamin C, 21 percent more iron, 29 percent more magnesium and 13 percent more phosphorus than their conventional counterparts."
I figured that it was meaningful that I'd never heard any such thing before, and I was right; I wasn't able to find any impartial sites (ie gov't or scientific sites, as opposed to pro-organic sites) that backed this up, but I DID find several good sites that said something like this:
"Organic foods are not superior in nutritional quality or safety when compared against conventional foods, yet organics do have the potential for greater pathogen contamination. Thus, purchasing organically grown produce is not necessary for safety or nutritional reasons, according to the Institute of Food Technologists, an international, not-for-profit scientific society.
'Consumers need to understand that organic production does not mean pesticide-free and pathogen-free production,' says IFT food science expert Carl Winter, the director of the FoodSafe Program at the University of California at Davis. Neither organic nor conventionally grown foods are free from pesticides. And scientific evidence indicates that health risks associated with disease-causing microorganisms are far greater than risks associated with pesticide residues, which are negligible."
And this:
"Vaclav Smil, author of "Feeding the World: A Challenge for the 21st Century,'' says relying only on organic fertilizers would allow us to feed only half the world's people - or force the hunger-stricken to clear the world's remaining forests to plant more low-yield crops."
So, my disinclination to "buy organic" turns out to be correct... at least in reference to produce.
Although what this magazine said about food had by this point become HIGHLY suspect, I read on and learned:
"There have been no cases of BSE (aka mad cow disease) reported in animals that have been raised entirely according to organic production methods. Beef labeled "organic" cannot have received any animal byproducts in its feed; even the animal's mother must have been fed organic feed for three months before giving birth. To label beef organic, the farmer must trace an animal from birth to slaughter. Buying organic is a good way to avoid the risk of BSE as well as vote against the common practice of spiking animal feed with antibiotics and dosing cows with hormones."
That sounded good... until my husband and I got some organic steaks and found them to be gamey-tasting. We'll try it again, as every so often you get beef that isn't as good as usual, just like any other kind of food can have "bad days," and maybe overall it'll taste as good; I'm not willing to eat meat that isn't as good forever, though, so if it turns out that it takes modern methods of meat production to get good-tasting steaks, so be it. However, those of you who put beef in dishes with alot of seasoning probably couldn't tell the difference even if the taste really is significantly less appealing, so by all means try it if you can afford it.
The next tidbit was:
"Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) is a genetically engineered hormone produced by Monsanto and designed to increase milk production. Unfortunately, it promotes significant health problems in cows, problems that are then treated with antibiotics. It also has questionable impacts on the milk that treated cows produce... Despite discouragement from the FDA and Monsanto, some dairy companies (both organic and nonorganic) do label their milk cartons stating their position against the use of rBGH. By law such labels must also include a statement saying that the FDA has found no significant difference between rBGH and non-rBGH products. The organic label on milk, cheese and yogurt ensures that no rBGH was used during production."
It might be worthwhile to pay more for non-rBGH dairy products to save cows from being given health problems; my husband and I are already paying more for local, high-quality dairy products because of the superior flavor, though, so the only new thing we're likely to try is the milk, as we only use it in cooking and the flavor isn't an issue... again, however, I'd recommend trying anything you can find if you're up for it.
Another important issue about dairy that they mention is:
"It's becoming easier, too, to find dairy products from pasture-fed animals, which are higher in cancer-fighting conjugated linoleic acid, beta carotene, vitamin E and healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Some people assert that milk from grass-fed cows has a richer taste as well."
I couldn't find anything "official" to back THESE claims up either, which shows just how suspicious we need to be about articles of this nature, BUT, it's a nice idea to let cows walk around outside and graze, and the cows that produce the dairy I eat DO get to graze (I've seen them in the fields myself), and their products ARE better, so... it's worth a try if you can find and afford it, as you'll probably get some good karma, and maybe better taste too.
The info on poultry was REALLY eye-opening:
"Arsenic is an approved feed supplement for poultry."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!! I checked it out, and discovered that this IS in fact a standard component of feed for poultry, as it allegedly fights disease and promotes growth; there's debate amongst various agencies and researchers as to just how much arsenic is in the meat of these birds, with some saying that the levels are unsafe... that's sorta scary, isn't it?
There's more grim poultry news:
"Conventionally farmed chickens are often pumped full of chemically laced feed and raised in cramped group cages that put four or more birds in a cage the size of a sheet of notebook paper, encouraging disease and cannibalism. Although use of antibiotics in healthy animals has been reduced in recent years, it is still common."
There aren't many creatures as stupid and mean as chickens, but... this seems excessively cruel to me. The good news is:
"Certified organic chickens are fed organic, vegetarian feed and allowed access to the outdoors. They are not treated with antibiotics or hormones."
Although I dislike chickens, I still think it's better if they get to run around outside, both from a health standpoint and from a karmic one; the difference in the lives of the birds is so dramatic that I'd even recommend spending significantly more to get organic chicken if you can afford it, because the more we spend on this more humane system, the more chicken "farms" will adopt it... and that'll make the price eventually fall.
A final comment about organic-ness that was NOT in the article: When we think of organic fertilizer, we normally think of manure, but far more common are fertilizers made of bonemeal and bloodmeal, which are exactly what they sound like, so vegans take note; the cows that provide the bloodmeal didn't voluntarily donate the blood, and the ones that provide the bonemeal didn't die of old age... these products come from cows that are slaughtered for their meat. If part of the reason you're a vegan is for no animals to die to feed you, you'll want to either buy organic produce exclusively from farms that you've verified use only manure, or just buy non-organic produce.
To sum it all up: If it's available in your area and you can afford it, give the organic beef, poultry and dairy a try; unlike organic produce, organic animal products DO seem like a better choice overall.
Monday, November 29, 2004
How do you feel?
Do you feel something that no other human being has ever felt? Have you EVER felt something that no other human being has ever felt? Does ANY person feel anything totally unique? It just doesn't seem likely, does it, even if you only consider the 6.1 BILLION people currently alive and not everyone who ever lived? Our ability to interact with each other in a constructive manner REQUIRES, in fact, that we DO feel alike about similar things; without this commonality, we couldn't feel empathy, and that would make all of us sociopaths by default... not a pretty thought. All of the systems of rewards and punishments that we use and depend on, from parent/child, teacher/pupil and employer/employee systems to our societal agreement about the rightness of putting bad folks in jail and giving good ones awards, can only work if we all agree that certain things feel good or bad to ALL of us. Psychology couldn't exist if people's feelings weren't relentlessly consistent, and the way any decent shrink can figure you out to the last detail shows that they do, in fact, have a handle on what a human being will feel under given circumstances. Books, movies and TV shows just plain wouldn't make sense to us if the people who write for them couldn't predict how the characters should feel (knowing that everyone who's reading/watching will be able to tell if any of it's wrong) and how YOU will feel in response, and the advertising industry would cease to exist in an instant if they couldn't predict out to 9 decimal places how the images they present will make people feel.
Why, then, do so many people try to claim that no one knows how they feel, that no one feels like they do, etc? Yes, alot of the time it's angst-filled young people who say that, and it's a natural part of their development to separate from their families emotionally and thus feel for a while like emotional "islands," but I've heard plenty of adults say the same sort of thing:
Jane: I've been so sad since my mother died.
Sue: I know how you feel; when MY mother died last year, I felt really sad, too.
Jane: No, you don't know how I feel.
Mary: That's right, everyone has different feelings.
Jane's being unreasonable, not to mention ungrateful for the attempted empathy and sympathy, Mary's a busybody and dead-wrong to boot, and Sue just learned that it's a waste of time to try to give heartfelt comfort to anyone... not an ideal picture, is it? When a tragic event occurs, every sane human being will feel the SAME intense emotions; there aren't a different set of emotions for each person. Grief and loss in particular follow such a predictable pattern, not just in how people feel but what sorts of thoughts they'll have at each step, that they've actually been "flowcharted"; most articles on the subject will list the stages and how they work, so there's no mystery there. If you're the one with the loss, to claim that your feelings are different from everyone else's cuts you off from the emotional support of others, as they need to believe that they have some sort of grasp of the emotional landscape before they can reach out, and if you try to be like Mary, convincing people that "everyone has different feelings," you'll be blocking other people from giving and receiving support for the same reason... and that's gotta be seriously bad karma.
Another disgraceful example of this concept of everyone's feelings being different comes on too many news programs, where, when someone just found out that their house burned down, or that their brother is a serial killer, or that they won the lottery, some moron shoves a mic in their face and asks, "How do you feel?," as if there were CHOICES as to what feelings a person would have under those circumstances... as if they weren't just trying to manipulate the emotionally-dazed victims into saying exactly what they know they'll say, especially when it's BAD news that's just been received. Why do we have this ghoulish desire to hear devastated people describe their feelings? In the rare occasion that someone who's gotten joyous news is being shown, why do we want to break into their moment of exultation by demanding that they face the camera and say "I'm really happy, I'm just... really happy"? We know perfectly well how they feel, we can see it in their faces even if we didn't catch the description of what just happened to them, so why the endless game-playing, this waiting with baited breath as if there's ANY chance that the feelings they describe won't be the ones we already know they're experiencing?
The dark side of this nonsense is that an increasing # of people truly believe that their feelings ARE unique, and thus that no one understands what they're going through... and this leaves them feeling isolated, lonely, and miserable on top of whatever else was bothering them. It's high time that we all accept that, as human beings, we have the same emotional experiences under the same circumstances, and use that fact to give comfort and support to, and receive it from, those who care about us.
Why, then, do so many people try to claim that no one knows how they feel, that no one feels like they do, etc? Yes, alot of the time it's angst-filled young people who say that, and it's a natural part of their development to separate from their families emotionally and thus feel for a while like emotional "islands," but I've heard plenty of adults say the same sort of thing:
Jane: I've been so sad since my mother died.
Sue: I know how you feel; when MY mother died last year, I felt really sad, too.
Jane: No, you don't know how I feel.
Mary: That's right, everyone has different feelings.
Jane's being unreasonable, not to mention ungrateful for the attempted empathy and sympathy, Mary's a busybody and dead-wrong to boot, and Sue just learned that it's a waste of time to try to give heartfelt comfort to anyone... not an ideal picture, is it? When a tragic event occurs, every sane human being will feel the SAME intense emotions; there aren't a different set of emotions for each person. Grief and loss in particular follow such a predictable pattern, not just in how people feel but what sorts of thoughts they'll have at each step, that they've actually been "flowcharted"; most articles on the subject will list the stages and how they work, so there's no mystery there. If you're the one with the loss, to claim that your feelings are different from everyone else's cuts you off from the emotional support of others, as they need to believe that they have some sort of grasp of the emotional landscape before they can reach out, and if you try to be like Mary, convincing people that "everyone has different feelings," you'll be blocking other people from giving and receiving support for the same reason... and that's gotta be seriously bad karma.
Another disgraceful example of this concept of everyone's feelings being different comes on too many news programs, where, when someone just found out that their house burned down, or that their brother is a serial killer, or that they won the lottery, some moron shoves a mic in their face and asks, "How do you feel?," as if there were CHOICES as to what feelings a person would have under those circumstances... as if they weren't just trying to manipulate the emotionally-dazed victims into saying exactly what they know they'll say, especially when it's BAD news that's just been received. Why do we have this ghoulish desire to hear devastated people describe their feelings? In the rare occasion that someone who's gotten joyous news is being shown, why do we want to break into their moment of exultation by demanding that they face the camera and say "I'm really happy, I'm just... really happy"? We know perfectly well how they feel, we can see it in their faces even if we didn't catch the description of what just happened to them, so why the endless game-playing, this waiting with baited breath as if there's ANY chance that the feelings they describe won't be the ones we already know they're experiencing?
The dark side of this nonsense is that an increasing # of people truly believe that their feelings ARE unique, and thus that no one understands what they're going through... and this leaves them feeling isolated, lonely, and miserable on top of whatever else was bothering them. It's high time that we all accept that, as human beings, we have the same emotional experiences under the same circumstances, and use that fact to give comfort and support to, and receive it from, those who care about us.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Synchronicity, and a realization
I was thinking today that it had been an unusually long time since I had a significant incident of synchronicity, eg something bigger than thinking of someone and then having them call or email me minutes later... and, as always, karma obliged me. I got the urge to do an eBay search for a DVD that, as far as I knew, didn't exist other than as a bootleg of unknown quality; an auction showed up that looked like it might be the real thing, at long last... and claiming that it had just been released a couple of weeks ago, which isn't too bad since I hadn't done this search for about a year. I went to the website most likely to have this DVD for sale if it were for real, and, right there on the home page, there was a picture of the hottie featured in the DVD, which, when clicked, revealed that he was one of a bunch of celebs picked to be featured on that site for ONE DAY each in the month prior to Christmas... and there I was on his day.
The DVD did turn out to be real, and I went back to eBay and did a differently-worded search, found a seller offering it at less than half the discounted price the site I'd been on had had it for, and added it to my list; hopefully, I'll get it right away, but if not, at least I know to look for it. Cool, huh?
The realization I had today is that the antidote to my lifelong tendency to freak out endlessly over anything that goes wrong (which was engendered in me by my mother, who does it way worse than I ever did) is... my husband, the KING of endless disasters and screwups. He'll laugh when he sees this, as from his perspective I'm always squawking at him about something, but the bigger picture is that, while one problematic thing would once have haunted me night and day (egged on by my mother's non-stop doom and gloom), these days I've become so used to things being FUBAR that none of them stick with me any more; I've just started noticing that things that would have been on my mind every second a few years ago, like the missing Blockbuster DVD that's messing up the value we're getting from the online ordering service, are miraculously dropping off of my radar for DAYS at a time, something I would have previously thought impossible. Although I'm certainly still tightly-wound by "normal" standards, I've become almost laid-back by my family of origin's standards; although I've often complained about my husband's endless foulups, and will continue to do so, they've collectively benefited me, causing me to become a more relaxed person instead of causing me to need the padded cell that anyone who knew me would have predicted I'd need had they known what I'd have to deal with once I got married.
I'm sure I've received this insight courtesy of my thinking about the need to be grateful for the benefits we get from the "bad" things in life, which I wrote about a few days ago; it's worth saying it again-cool, huh?
The DVD did turn out to be real, and I went back to eBay and did a differently-worded search, found a seller offering it at less than half the discounted price the site I'd been on had had it for, and added it to my list; hopefully, I'll get it right away, but if not, at least I know to look for it. Cool, huh?
The realization I had today is that the antidote to my lifelong tendency to freak out endlessly over anything that goes wrong (which was engendered in me by my mother, who does it way worse than I ever did) is... my husband, the KING of endless disasters and screwups. He'll laugh when he sees this, as from his perspective I'm always squawking at him about something, but the bigger picture is that, while one problematic thing would once have haunted me night and day (egged on by my mother's non-stop doom and gloom), these days I've become so used to things being FUBAR that none of them stick with me any more; I've just started noticing that things that would have been on my mind every second a few years ago, like the missing Blockbuster DVD that's messing up the value we're getting from the online ordering service, are miraculously dropping off of my radar for DAYS at a time, something I would have previously thought impossible. Although I'm certainly still tightly-wound by "normal" standards, I've become almost laid-back by my family of origin's standards; although I've often complained about my husband's endless foulups, and will continue to do so, they've collectively benefited me, causing me to become a more relaxed person instead of causing me to need the padded cell that anyone who knew me would have predicted I'd need had they known what I'd have to deal with once I got married.
I'm sure I've received this insight courtesy of my thinking about the need to be grateful for the benefits we get from the "bad" things in life, which I wrote about a few days ago; it's worth saying it again-cool, huh?
