Friday, July 27, 2007
We're a little sad today at our house.
our parakeet, Ms. DeBird, died.
She came to us from our next-door neighbors. They said that a relative of theirs had found this parakeet at their bird feeder, and caught it, and gave it to them, but they were going on vacation and would we mind keeping an eye on "Mr. Bird" for them, for just a little while?
and that became three years.
She was bossy, aggressive, demanding, pushy, not at all friendly. but she'd whistle back at you if you whistled at her just right, which was adorable.
She seemed not to have suffered tremendously, although her feathers were looking kind of rumpled over the past week. I thought she was just molting. I feel so bad that I was wrong.
It's sad to lose an animal. And you know it's dumb and foolish to grieve over a parakeet of all things, and embarrassing, yet it's sometimes easier to grieve for a pet than a person.
our parakeet, Ms. DeBird, died.
She came to us from our next-door neighbors. They said that a relative of theirs had found this parakeet at their bird feeder, and caught it, and gave it to them, but they were going on vacation and would we mind keeping an eye on "Mr. Bird" for them, for just a little while?
and that became three years.
She was bossy, aggressive, demanding, pushy, not at all friendly. but she'd whistle back at you if you whistled at her just right, which was adorable.
She seemed not to have suffered tremendously, although her feathers were looking kind of rumpled over the past week. I thought she was just molting. I feel so bad that I was wrong.
It's sad to lose an animal. And you know it's dumb and foolish to grieve over a parakeet of all things, and embarrassing, yet it's sometimes easier to grieve for a pet than a person.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
oh wow.
Words of wisdom from Heart:
Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights. It has nothing to do with feminism. As such, as feminists, just as we oppose men’s rights, in general, we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.
"we oppose men's rights in general." well, okay. now it's out in the open. but if that's really what you think, I think Amnesty International would like to have a little chat...
See, this is embarrassing.
Heart carelessly? foolishly? truthfully? freudian-slippedly? claims that feminists oppose men's rights. I am hoping, because I am an optimistic person, that she really meant The Men's Rights Movement, ideological home of such concepts as repealing women's suffrage, a "return to traditional families" (which never existed in the first place), and other such crap.
Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that Heart thinks that feminists oppose things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, representative democracy, speedy trial, unreasonable search-n-seizure, no cruel and unusual punishment, all that sort of stuff, for people with XY chromosomes.
Heart, tell me I misread you. Tell me I misunderstood you. Tell me it was a typo and you forgot to capitalize. Tell me SOMETHING.
Otherwise I'll have to think you're a bigger embarrassment to feminism than I originally thought.
Words of wisdom from Heart:
Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights. It has nothing to do with feminism. As such, as feminists, just as we oppose men’s rights, in general, we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.
"we oppose men's rights in general." well, okay. now it's out in the open. but if that's really what you think, I think Amnesty International would like to have a little chat...
See, this is embarrassing.
Heart carelessly? foolishly? truthfully? freudian-slippedly? claims that feminists oppose men's rights. I am hoping, because I am an optimistic person, that she really meant The Men's Rights Movement, ideological home of such concepts as repealing women's suffrage, a "return to traditional families" (which never existed in the first place), and other such crap.
Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that Heart thinks that feminists oppose things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, representative democracy, speedy trial, unreasonable search-n-seizure, no cruel and unusual punishment, all that sort of stuff, for people with XY chromosomes.
Heart, tell me I misread you. Tell me I misunderstood you. Tell me it was a typo and you forgot to capitalize. Tell me SOMETHING.
Otherwise I'll have to think you're a bigger embarrassment to feminism than I originally thought.
Friday, July 20, 2007
A Modest Proposal for justicewalks:
yeah, I'm going after a radical feminist. whadaya gonna do, call my mommy?
Here is JW's comment on a recent thread at the IBTP board:
We could do this by refusing to be mothers to males. Even in places where abortions or other adequate birth control are lacking, women could refuse to nurse male neonates. You may wonder what horrible tragedies would befall the poor women who didn't give men the sons they demanded. Might they be beaten? Might they be raped? Might they be killed?
Women are being beaten, raped, murdered, sold, and dehumanized right now, in torture porn and elsewhere. I'd rather die fighting as one of the last generation of women to suffer at the hands of men than to live a life of patriarchy-provided comfort, at the expense the generations of daughters to come.
First of all, I'd love to know where all the generations of daughters to come are going to come from, without any grown-up sons around to help out with that.
But, I'll let that itsee-bitsee lapse of logic slide for now, in the interest of sisterhood and understanding.
Because I have an invitation for you, JusticeWalks, or anyone else who shares her view.
Come visit me in early February. Stay with me a while, as I come to the end of my pregnancy. Meet me. Meet my Nigel. Talk to me. Defend your position on what to do with boy babies in order to create a better world. Explain to me why the world is better off without my son (if indeed I am having one). I promise I will listen with an open mind.
You can even hang out with me the day of delivery. And if you've managed to convince me that boy babies should be eliminated from the face of the earth, by all means I will hand the squirmy, slimy, screaming little bundle of patriarchy over to you immediately, and you may dispatch it as you see fit. to hell with what my Nigel thinks.
Humanely euthanize it, and wash your hands of the entire affair. or, starve it and watch it slowly expire over time. or, what the hell, bash its skull against a rock, why not, and let the blood cascade over your hands, and feel real good about yourself. You're making the world a better place.
Frankly, justicewalks, I don't think you have the guts to make living things dead in this manner. But if you think you do, come on down! our door is always open. We want to make the world a better place too, and if you think you have a better idea, well, we're waiting to be convinced.
oh, yeah, may be triggering. sorry.
yeah, I'm going after a radical feminist. whadaya gonna do, call my mommy?
Here is JW's comment on a recent thread at the IBTP board:
We could do this by refusing to be mothers to males. Even in places where abortions or other adequate birth control are lacking, women could refuse to nurse male neonates. You may wonder what horrible tragedies would befall the poor women who didn't give men the sons they demanded. Might they be beaten? Might they be raped? Might they be killed?
Women are being beaten, raped, murdered, sold, and dehumanized right now, in torture porn and elsewhere. I'd rather die fighting as one of the last generation of women to suffer at the hands of men than to live a life of patriarchy-provided comfort, at the expense the generations of daughters to come.
First of all, I'd love to know where all the generations of daughters to come are going to come from, without any grown-up sons around to help out with that.
But, I'll let that itsee-bitsee lapse of logic slide for now, in the interest of sisterhood and understanding.
Because I have an invitation for you, JusticeWalks, or anyone else who shares her view.
Come visit me in early February. Stay with me a while, as I come to the end of my pregnancy. Meet me. Meet my Nigel. Talk to me. Defend your position on what to do with boy babies in order to create a better world. Explain to me why the world is better off without my son (if indeed I am having one). I promise I will listen with an open mind.
You can even hang out with me the day of delivery. And if you've managed to convince me that boy babies should be eliminated from the face of the earth, by all means I will hand the squirmy, slimy, screaming little bundle of patriarchy over to you immediately, and you may dispatch it as you see fit. to hell with what my Nigel thinks.
Humanely euthanize it, and wash your hands of the entire affair. or, starve it and watch it slowly expire over time. or, what the hell, bash its skull against a rock, why not, and let the blood cascade over your hands, and feel real good about yourself. You're making the world a better place.
Frankly, justicewalks, I don't think you have the guts to make living things dead in this manner. But if you think you do, come on down! our door is always open. We want to make the world a better place too, and if you think you have a better idea, well, we're waiting to be convinced.
oh, yeah, may be triggering. sorry.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Round round get around I get around...
found here, at ye olde Twistyverse:
http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=882.msg11785#msg11785
Medusa, I have hesitated to address your Nigel Jr issues as well, because you want to take it personally that radical feminists do not care what a good little patriarch you are raising. Radical feminists only care that, so long as patriarchy exists, all little boys, down to the very last puppy dog's tail, grow up to be patriarchs, who are our enemies. Your joy at your son's empathy or niceness or whatever doesn't change the fact that the existence of patriarchs (especially the ones who 'can do no wrong') at all means that girls and women will continue to be oppressed by male supremacy. The joy your son brings you is gotten off the backs of the women and girls your son has/will continue to exploit (and exploit is broad; please give some consideration to the ways even 'good' men exploit women before you let your hackles raise too far; if he's school-aged, he's probably already stolen more than his fair share of the teacher's attention from some equally deserving girl, not his fault, but still a fact of life), and off the backs of the women he'll stand by and let his brethren rape and exploit. While I don't deny that women do not currently have much choice in the matter of raising our oppressors, that doesn't change the fact that it is nothing to celebrate on a radical feminist forum, not least because it isn't radical.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Medusa got a chance to answer this commenter. So I don't know what she thinks of the comment, or even if she'd be cool about my discussing it here. But, as they say, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
(It's probably worth mentioning that there's another thread elsewhere on that board for women discussing the raising of boys. It's a very low-key, quiet, please-don't-hurt-me type thread, in my estimation, but judge for y'allselves: http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=750.0)
OK - back to business.
As someone who could potentially be the mother of a son (I guess we'll find out sooner or later), I find this extremely disturbing. let's EXAMINE this, shall we?
Medusa, I have hesitated to address your Nigel Jr issues as well, because you want to take it personally that radical feminists do not care what a good little patriarch you are raising.
well, yeah. I think it's quite reasonable to take it personally - I mean, the statement is not only designed to provoke Medusa, but it's also completely irrational. If radical feminists want to eradicate patriarchy, why would they not care about the raising of boys?
Radical feminists only care that, so long as patriarchy exists, all little boys, down to the very last puppy dog's tail, grow up to be patriarchs, who are our enemies.
holy shit - seriously? I thought biology was NOT, specifically NOT, definitely NOT, absolutely NOT destiny. I thought behavior, not chromosomes, dictated one's level of worth to society. right? that's how it's okay for women to have independent thoughts, desires, worth, etc. - because we are not universally subject to the whims of the womb, as was previously thought. This commenter seems to think that anything with an XY chromosome is chained to his destiny of oppression, no matter what steps are taken - how is that different from thinking that anything with an XX chromosome is chained to hers?
Your joy at your son's empathy or niceness or whatever doesn't change the fact that the existence of patriarchs (especially the ones who 'can do no wrong') at all means that girls and women will continue to be oppressed by male supremacy.
but if more mothers (more parents, really) expressed joy at their sons' empathy and niceness, maybe such behavior would be reinforced, and the oppressive behavior we all deplore would, if not disappear, at least diminish over time. But you gotta start somewhere - why not in the cradle? and why on earth bust on women who are trying to do just that?
The joy your son brings you is gotten off the backs of the women and girls your son has/will continue to exploit (and exploit is broad; please give some consideration to the ways even 'good' men exploit women before you let your hackles raise too far; if he's school-aged, he's probably already stolen more than his fair share of the teacher's attention from some equally deserving girl, not his fault, but still a fact of life), and off the backs of the women he'll stand by and let his brethren rape and exploit.
Oh for the love of friendly purple dinosaurs! I think the child in question is all of five years old. How on earth can one even reasonably speculate on his future of oppression? for all we know, the boy in question could grow up to live all alone on a mountaintop, eating nothing but roots and berries, too fearful of oppressing any damn thing to come down. Or the poor darling could meet with a tragic accident (GOD FORBID, seriously) and never grow up to stand on the backs of women at all - what would the commenter say then?
"oh, well, sorry for your loss, Medusa, but at least it's one fewer foot on all of our necks, so don't despair! Viva la revolucion!"
While I don't deny that women do not currently have much choice in the matter of raising our oppressors, that doesn't change the fact that it is nothing to celebrate on a radical feminist forum, not least because it isn't radical.
ok - here's where this commenter just crosses the line, for me (as if any of the rest of her comment was any more acceptable). What do you suggest, commenter? what modest proposal can you put forth as an alternative? I'm sure boy babies can be easily recycled as food for wolves, vultures, hungry lunatics such as yourself...
and, if I have not made myself clear yet, let me do so now - the effort to raise humane boys, with the intent to create humane men, is WAY more radical an idea than "I blame the patriarchy."
Whew. I'm done. more or less.
Coupla others have weighed in on this, notably Kim and Rootie. Share and enjoy.
found here, at ye olde Twistyverse:
http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=882.msg11785#msg11785
Medusa, I have hesitated to address your Nigel Jr issues as well, because you want to take it personally that radical feminists do not care what a good little patriarch you are raising. Radical feminists only care that, so long as patriarchy exists, all little boys, down to the very last puppy dog's tail, grow up to be patriarchs, who are our enemies. Your joy at your son's empathy or niceness or whatever doesn't change the fact that the existence of patriarchs (especially the ones who 'can do no wrong') at all means that girls and women will continue to be oppressed by male supremacy. The joy your son brings you is gotten off the backs of the women and girls your son has/will continue to exploit (and exploit is broad; please give some consideration to the ways even 'good' men exploit women before you let your hackles raise too far; if he's school-aged, he's probably already stolen more than his fair share of the teacher's attention from some equally deserving girl, not his fault, but still a fact of life), and off the backs of the women he'll stand by and let his brethren rape and exploit. While I don't deny that women do not currently have much choice in the matter of raising our oppressors, that doesn't change the fact that it is nothing to celebrate on a radical feminist forum, not least because it isn't radical.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Medusa got a chance to answer this commenter. So I don't know what she thinks of the comment, or even if she'd be cool about my discussing it here. But, as they say, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
(It's probably worth mentioning that there's another thread elsewhere on that board for women discussing the raising of boys. It's a very low-key, quiet, please-don't-hurt-me type thread, in my estimation, but judge for y'allselves: http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=750.0)
OK - back to business.
As someone who could potentially be the mother of a son (I guess we'll find out sooner or later), I find this extremely disturbing. let's EXAMINE this, shall we?
Medusa, I have hesitated to address your Nigel Jr issues as well, because you want to take it personally that radical feminists do not care what a good little patriarch you are raising.
well, yeah. I think it's quite reasonable to take it personally - I mean, the statement is not only designed to provoke Medusa, but it's also completely irrational. If radical feminists want to eradicate patriarchy, why would they not care about the raising of boys?
Radical feminists only care that, so long as patriarchy exists, all little boys, down to the very last puppy dog's tail, grow up to be patriarchs, who are our enemies.
holy shit - seriously? I thought biology was NOT, specifically NOT, definitely NOT, absolutely NOT destiny. I thought behavior, not chromosomes, dictated one's level of worth to society. right? that's how it's okay for women to have independent thoughts, desires, worth, etc. - because we are not universally subject to the whims of the womb, as was previously thought. This commenter seems to think that anything with an XY chromosome is chained to his destiny of oppression, no matter what steps are taken - how is that different from thinking that anything with an XX chromosome is chained to hers?
Your joy at your son's empathy or niceness or whatever doesn't change the fact that the existence of patriarchs (especially the ones who 'can do no wrong') at all means that girls and women will continue to be oppressed by male supremacy.
but if more mothers (more parents, really) expressed joy at their sons' empathy and niceness, maybe such behavior would be reinforced, and the oppressive behavior we all deplore would, if not disappear, at least diminish over time. But you gotta start somewhere - why not in the cradle? and why on earth bust on women who are trying to do just that?
The joy your son brings you is gotten off the backs of the women and girls your son has/will continue to exploit (and exploit is broad; please give some consideration to the ways even 'good' men exploit women before you let your hackles raise too far; if he's school-aged, he's probably already stolen more than his fair share of the teacher's attention from some equally deserving girl, not his fault, but still a fact of life), and off the backs of the women he'll stand by and let his brethren rape and exploit.
Oh for the love of friendly purple dinosaurs! I think the child in question is all of five years old. How on earth can one even reasonably speculate on his future of oppression? for all we know, the boy in question could grow up to live all alone on a mountaintop, eating nothing but roots and berries, too fearful of oppressing any damn thing to come down. Or the poor darling could meet with a tragic accident (GOD FORBID, seriously) and never grow up to stand on the backs of women at all - what would the commenter say then?
"oh, well, sorry for your loss, Medusa, but at least it's one fewer foot on all of our necks, so don't despair! Viva la revolucion!"
While I don't deny that women do not currently have much choice in the matter of raising our oppressors, that doesn't change the fact that it is nothing to celebrate on a radical feminist forum, not least because it isn't radical.
ok - here's where this commenter just crosses the line, for me (as if any of the rest of her comment was any more acceptable). What do you suggest, commenter? what modest proposal can you put forth as an alternative? I'm sure boy babies can be easily recycled as food for wolves, vultures, hungry lunatics such as yourself...
and, if I have not made myself clear yet, let me do so now - the effort to raise humane boys, with the intent to create humane men, is WAY more radical an idea than "I blame the patriarchy."
Whew. I'm done. more or less.
Coupla others have weighed in on this, notably Kim and Rootie. Share and enjoy.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Well, looks like the great Cease Fire of 2007 has lapsed. Great! We're all well rested, got our second winds, ready to fight the good fight once again.
so - CHARGE!
I think I read on Witchy's comments recently someone mentioned the fact that the "yaypornies" aren't listening. they never listen. that's the whole problem. they don't listen.
well, here - let's listen. let's listen and respond.
Here's a comment from a commenter on a recent thread at IBTP:
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.
A good phrase to translate “pro-porn”:
“pro - pursuit of orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings “
wow, y'all. really? is that really the sum total of what it means to be pro-porn? That's what it reduces to? well, yeah, that's awful. I'm not at all comfortable with degrading and harming fellow human beings.
BUT - if no fellow human beings were degraded or harmed in the pursuit of my orgasm, then what I'm using to pursue it is NOT porn? so I'm in the clear?
OR if fellow human beings were degraded or harmed, but I'm not pursuing orgasm, I'm still okay?
I guess it depends largely on one's definition of "degrade" and "harm". and maybe even "orgasm". and no, I'm not merely playing semantics games. definitions are important.
I know some folks who become aroused when looking at pictures of objects. not people. no fellow human beings involved at all, yet intense arousal happens, lust is inspired, orgasms occur - you know, normally object fetishists don't get no respect, but in this case maybe they've got it figured out - sexual thrills without the human cost. who's the freak NOW?
and I can see the eyes rolling, hear the impatient sighs - "you KNOW that's not what we MEAN! We mean PORN. ASSFUCKING. BLOODY BLOWJOBS. etc. ad naus."
I tell you this - sitting for my FAMILY PICTURE with my abusive exhusband was exponentially more degrading and harmful to me than any bloody blowjob assfuck session.
which is not to say that the bloody blowjob assfuck session is everybody's cup of tea. I get that. But I have to admit that I've had some very satisfying, very intense sexual experiences that were a bit beyond the pale, and did not leave me feeling "harmed" or "degraded."
Sitting next to the man who wanted to KILL ME, and smiling like it was nothing, pretending we were Mr. and Mrs. America - yeah, that was a thousand times more humiliating.
So, yeah, we're listening. and responding. but lots of us feel like y'all don't care.
so - CHARGE!
I think I read on Witchy's comments recently someone mentioned the fact that the "yaypornies" aren't listening. they never listen. that's the whole problem. they don't listen.
well, here - let's listen. let's listen and respond.
Here's a comment from a commenter on a recent thread at IBTP:
I hate that they pursue orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings.
A good phrase to translate “pro-porn”:
“pro - pursuit of orgasm by degrading and harming fellow human beings “
wow, y'all. really? is that really the sum total of what it means to be pro-porn? That's what it reduces to? well, yeah, that's awful. I'm not at all comfortable with degrading and harming fellow human beings.
BUT - if no fellow human beings were degraded or harmed in the pursuit of my orgasm, then what I'm using to pursue it is NOT porn? so I'm in the clear?
OR if fellow human beings were degraded or harmed, but I'm not pursuing orgasm, I'm still okay?
I guess it depends largely on one's definition of "degrade" and "harm". and maybe even "orgasm". and no, I'm not merely playing semantics games. definitions are important.
I know some folks who become aroused when looking at pictures of objects. not people. no fellow human beings involved at all, yet intense arousal happens, lust is inspired, orgasms occur - you know, normally object fetishists don't get no respect, but in this case maybe they've got it figured out - sexual thrills without the human cost. who's the freak NOW?
and I can see the eyes rolling, hear the impatient sighs - "you KNOW that's not what we MEAN! We mean PORN. ASSFUCKING. BLOODY BLOWJOBS. etc. ad naus."
I tell you this - sitting for my FAMILY PICTURE with my abusive exhusband was exponentially more degrading and harmful to me than any bloody blowjob assfuck session.
which is not to say that the bloody blowjob assfuck session is everybody's cup of tea. I get that. But I have to admit that I've had some very satisfying, very intense sexual experiences that were a bit beyond the pale, and did not leave me feeling "harmed" or "degraded."
Sitting next to the man who wanted to KILL ME, and smiling like it was nothing, pretending we were Mr. and Mrs. America - yeah, that was a thousand times more humiliating.
So, yeah, we're listening. and responding. but lots of us feel like y'all don't care.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Everyone say hi to the new girl:
Silvia Sea, at The Annihilating Feminine!
HI SILVIA SEA!!
she's smart, she's brave, she just kicks major butt. go see for y'allselves.
g'wan! git!
Silvia Sea, at The Annihilating Feminine!
HI SILVIA SEA!!
she's smart, she's brave, she just kicks major butt. go see for y'allselves.
g'wan! git!
Thursday, July 05, 2007
not for nothin' but it looks like my husband will be teaching guitar lessons at our local Music and Art Center.
this is huge. I'm really proud of him.
so if you know anyone in the area who is limping through "Stairway" and wants to take guitar lessons, send 'em our way. hammer-ons, pull-offs, that wheedlywheedlywheedly stuff, Smoke on the Water, Advanced Spandex - he's your guy. c'mon down!
it's cool because a) it's something he knows really well, rock guitar, and b) he is totally NOT a 9-5 tie guy and this is a good way for him to make some money and stay sane (more or less), and c) he will have a delightfully flexible schedule which will be great for when the baby comes in february.
so rock on, my husband. I am really proud of you and bragging to the whole blogosphere. (hope that doesn't jinx it...)
this is huge. I'm really proud of him.
so if you know anyone in the area who is limping through "Stairway" and wants to take guitar lessons, send 'em our way. hammer-ons, pull-offs, that wheedlywheedlywheedly stuff, Smoke on the Water, Advanced Spandex - he's your guy. c'mon down!
it's cool because a) it's something he knows really well, rock guitar, and b) he is totally NOT a 9-5 tie guy and this is a good way for him to make some money and stay sane (more or less), and c) he will have a delightfully flexible schedule which will be great for when the baby comes in february.
so rock on, my husband. I am really proud of you and bragging to the whole blogosphere. (hope that doesn't jinx it...)
ok, so I see I've been tagged by no fewer than THREE folks for the Random 8 Meme.
apparently inquiring minds want to know...something.
so, what can I offer...you know it's amazing how hard I've had to think about this and still come up empty. I fear you will all be disappointed!
1) I went to the Smith College Community College Connections summer program a few years ago and dissected a sheep brain and learned samba and wrote really long papers on the cultural importance of Saturday Night Fever. it was awesome.
2) I don't drive. I've gotten close a couple times, but the fear always wins.
3) I used to work as a costumed interpreter at the 1840 House at the Baltimore City Life Museums. Best Job EVER.
4) I have terrible math anxiety.
5) I stayed back a year in high school. it was messed up and embarrassing.
6) I blame the Enclosure Acts.
7) I've voted for third party candidates in every election I've ever voted in.
8) I wish I was a better housekeeper.
yaaaaaaaawn. well, now folks might get off my back. tag, you're it!
apparently inquiring minds want to know...something.
so, what can I offer...you know it's amazing how hard I've had to think about this and still come up empty. I fear you will all be disappointed!
1) I went to the Smith College Community College Connections summer program a few years ago and dissected a sheep brain and learned samba and wrote really long papers on the cultural importance of Saturday Night Fever. it was awesome.
2) I don't drive. I've gotten close a couple times, but the fear always wins.
3) I used to work as a costumed interpreter at the 1840 House at the Baltimore City Life Museums. Best Job EVER.
4) I have terrible math anxiety.
5) I stayed back a year in high school. it was messed up and embarrassing.
6) I blame the Enclosure Acts.
7) I've voted for third party candidates in every election I've ever voted in.
8) I wish I was a better housekeeper.
yaaaaaaaawn. well, now folks might get off my back. tag, you're it!
