Misc. comments 14

[redbird]

This is to sythyry, a fictional journal in which zie* was speculating on possible times to start the day: Some monsters begin our days at sunset, probably on the theory that fewer sensible people will be awake to notice dawn than to notice sunset. And some begin them in the middle of the night--I suspect the theory there is that the beginning/end of a day is such a weird activity that sensible people won't want to be aware of it.

*This is the appropriate pronoun for the being in question, who is neither female nor male nor neuter.

---

In answer to rysmiel's stated preference (in a comment thread on misia's journal, for a blunt "I'm not interested" rather than the social fiction of a previous engagement:

My basic answers--other than "Yes"--are a simple "No thank you" or, once in a while, "I'd love to but that's not a good time. How about $reschedule?" (Obviously, that works for "Let's have lunch Tuesday" or "Would you like to see a movie this weekend?" not for invitations to large parties or one-off events.)

Close friends may get more information--but someone I'm that close to would probably already know if I really couldn't handle or didn't like a particular activity or kind of event.

Baby shower invitations are the kind of things that seem to come from coworkers and other people who it's simpler not to have certain discussions with. (At such times, I heartily sympathize with your attitudes toward what you call "people stuff," much of which seems to be an aspect of small-scale politics.)

I think the last time I invented a previous engagement [as distinct from saying "No thank you" and leaving it at that] was to get out of the celebratory luncheon following my father's wedding. (I hadn't quite, at that point, concluded that I wanted never to speak to him again, so I took a deep breath, borrowed a leather bracelet from roadnotes for courage, and went to the ceremony itself. The bracelet proved useful to protect me from the corsage I hadn't realized would be inflicted on me.

---

A ramble about body hair, in response to a hfnuala's " And I *really* hate people who say 'I shave because it's how I feel clean.' and then act all surprised that us hairy women might find this kinda insulting." in a thread about body hair in yonmei's journal.


I suspect I would respond with something snide like "To each her own--I prefer soap and hot water."

I shave my chin before job interviews, and otherwise shave only if I'm about to get a new tattoo. I tried shaving my lower legs once (in part to show off a tattoo better, or so I speculated) and found that any possible visual advantage was outweighed by the annoyance of the itching when the hair grew back in.

I'm a mammal. Mammals have body hair. My sweeties seem perfectly content about that, without caring strongly (I don't recall either of them mentioning it), as I am with theirs. And I've mostly gotten over minding people who somehow find it weird or disgusting that I have body hair, while finding it entirely acceptable that people with Y chromosomes have body hair. (Not all of the people who have stated this opinion in my hearing are male.) What I still find weird is the person--granted, she was promoting a weird and (it transpired) painful hair removal method, so perhaps biased--who argued that I shouldn't use a razor to remove my chin hair when I felt the need because shaving was "male". Gender roles get weird in the oddest places.

I do trim some bits of body hair (mostly my chinny chin chin and underarms) with a scissor.

---

In a thread on lj_biz, in response to bradfitz claiming not to understand why the Abuse team are upset that he has stated publicly that he doesn't trust them:

I do trust the abuse team. Not that it matters, but my last interaction with Abuse-as-Abuse was a complaint I made and was told "this isn't a violation." On the other tentacle, part of why I trust the Abuse team is that one of them is an acquaintance who went to a bit of trouble for me last Spring, purely because I needed a favor and she was in a position to provide it.

If you're thinking "trust but verify", what you need is to find a way to verify, and not assume Abuse is guilty the moment you hear a complaint.

In a sense, abuse is like a police department: they need (and have) rules to limit what they do, and we recognize that they can make mistakes, but if you assume that they're always wrong, they're going to quit. Especially since, unlike actual police, they're not even getting paid for this. And if you believe they're actually evil, you should fire them.

If you're going to be Internal Affairs, or a court of appeals, you need to ask abuse for their side of it before assuming they're guilty: give them the same benefit of the doubt that you expect them to give people when there's a complaint.

I don't know you, but I do know that if someone told me "I don't trust you" I would assume they also didn't respect me. Because if you don't trust me, that means you will assume I'm lying to you. If you listen to my attackers, assume they're telling the truth, and only then go find out what I really did, that's neither trust nor respect. Turn it around, and imagine someone telling the world "I don't trust bradfitz. And then, when you call them on it, saying "Oh, I didn't mean I don't respect you, I just don't trust you, because people say nasty things about you."