Post 179: What is QD (Quora Digest)?

I have now had two posts relating to Quora Digest, so now might be a good time to better explain what it is for those who don’t know. In the second post, I believe I compared it to Yahoo! Answers. That is a fairly accurate comparison. It is a website where you can post questions and people can answer. When people answer they can provide “Credentials” to better bolster their answer with experience and authority. The answers are then voted on and while all are visible, the top voted answer is at the top. You can comment on all answers given, allowing for more discussion that Yahoo! Answers. Unlike Yahoo! Answers, questions can be submitted anonymously as can answers.

Questions on QD fall under five main categories: LMGTFY, Tell Me About It, Ask Abby, Fandoms, and That Depends.

The first LMGTFY (Let me Google that for you) questions are ones that they could easily Google for themselves. They have a right and wrong answer. These show up less often than the others. Examples of this are: “what professional basketball teams does Washington have?”, “what is a word that rhymes with doctor?”, “how many people live in New York?”.

The second kind, Tell Me About It, is less of a question where they are looking for an answer and more about “tell me a story when…”. They don’t really seem to serve as much a purpose as the other questions, beyond entertainment. They’re the kind of question you might ask on a first date when the conversation starts to go dry but you don’t want to resort to asking about the weather. Examples: “what was the saddest meal you ever ate?”, “what did the ‘weird’ kid at your school do to make them seem weird?”, “where was your first vacation?”, “what was the silliest reason you had to pick your kid up from school?”.

Ask Abby is basically the same kind of questions one would submit to an Ask Abby column, like “my son is doing this weird thing, how can I approach him about it?”.  Questions don’t have a right or wrong answer, as they tend to fall into grey areas, but it is asking an opinion rather than for a story. Other examples: “my boyfriend cheated on me, he wants to make it work and says I should cheat on him to make it even, but I don’t want to. What do I do?”

Fandoms are sort of a mix of all three of the previous categories. They are fandom specific questions that often involve a mix of stories, opinions, and facts. They ask about things related to specific fandoms. Like “why didn’t they use the Time Turner to kill Voldemort before people died” or “why didn’t Darth Vader know Luke and Leia didn’t die with their mom, couldn’t he have sensed them with the Force the way that Leia and Rey could sense when Luke died?” Some of them have definitive answers, others have answers that can be assumed from information provided, and some are totally a matter of opinion. These questions can also be things like “which character from this show is the best?” Which is asking people’s personal opinion, but relates just as much to storytelling as it does opinion because people tend to include stories about why they like that character.

The final type of question is That Depends. This generally works more as a subcategory of LMGTFY (where there is a definitive yes or no answer but they didn’t provide enough information to find it) or Ask Abby (where they are asking for opinions but didn’t give enough information). “Who gets custody?”: is one such question. Without more information, no one can really give a definitive answer. It would basically take an essay to guarantee they get the answer they are looking for because it doesn’t include information about the living situation or even what state/country they are in. Other times it is asking people’s opinion but only provides a little bit of information, so people are left guessing and saying things like “if X, then Y but if W, then Z. And if W and Z, then B”. So, almost every answer will have “it depends” in it somewhere. Other examples include, “is marijuana illegal?”, “my boyfriend says I cheated, but I don’t think I did, who is wrong?”, etc.

So far on my blog, I’ve answered a Tell Me About It (“What is the funniest reason you have been sent home from school?”, which I believe was actually “your kids have been sent home”) and an Ask Abby (“What do most people like, but won’t admit to liking?”). The post I have about Ross from Friends was also inspired by a question about whether or not he actually cheated on her, but I had been planning to post about it for a while. But I’ve answered more on QD, the ones I posted on here, I didn’t post on QD. Either because they were locked for answers or because I didn’t feel like sharing. Some people really just LOVE Ross. And I am already tired of arguing with strangers online about things that are more important (like women’s rights and common sense) than a fictional character.

Post 178: Can you get a man's haircut as a woman?

I have short hair. It isn’t exactly a bob, but it doesn’t reach my shoulders (when it gets close to them, it is my sign that I need a haircut). Meanwhile, one of my male colleagues has hair almost to his waist. He works very hard to maintain it. Now, I’m not writing this to say that there is anything wrong with him having long hair as a guy or my having short hair as a girl. What I feel is wrong is that despite him having more hair, I will still pay more than him at basically every hair salon.

I looked it up, just to confirm. And every hair salon had separate prices for men and women. Even hair salons that had different prices depending on the length of the women’s hair had nothing for the length of the men’s hair. And a haircut for women with short hair still cost more than any male haircut.

At the first salon I checked (Jeff and J Hair Salon), it is $32 for a Master Men’s Haircut. That is a flat rate. The woman’s haircut started at $50 ($50+)! That is an $18 difference regardless of the length of hair for the man or woman. Mint Salon had a $15 difference, with women paying $50 for a haircut and men paying $35. Shine has a similar price difference with women’s haircuts starting at $51, while men’s start at $35. Angelo’s is the closest in price for salons that don’t specify a different price by hair length, with a $4 difference (Women’s: $44, Men’s: $40). At Kast it is $47 for a women’s haircut and $32 for a man’s haircut.  At Refresh women will pay $40 and up, men will pay $30 and up.

The next salons (starting with LUXE) did specify hair length for women, but still not for men. A haircut for a woman with short hair at LUXE is $46. The same service for a man of any hair length is $40. Melika Salon also specifies by length for women and for a woman with short hair it costs $25, for a man it is $22. Which is the closest of any of the salon’s prices that I checked in difference by gender.

That means that women with short hair will be spend an average $11 more than men for a haircut. Which seems super weird to me. When I get my haircut it takes like 10-15 minutes. It is basically just a trim; a snip-snip here, snip-snip there and I’m done.  It is more common with men’s haircuts to need to also get out a razor to clean up the back of the neck and do that kind of shaping, which seems like it would be more work.

And if you are going to specify by length, why both by length AND gender? Why not just length? Or even by time it takes? Is it because salons assume women are  more willing to pay more and don’t have an alternative? Men have barbers which are cheaper, if they want to go that route instead.

I did some research to see if anyone else had these questions, or if anyone had the answers. I found someone who was also surprised by the cost difference (Alexandra Haddow – “Why do women have to pay so much more than men for their haircuts?”). She is located in England and did a price comparison as well. She compared five different places and found an average difference of £16.80 (like $28CAD) more for women than men, the highest point of difference was £40!

She spoke to various hairdressers and they seem to support my thoughts. There was an assumption that women will require more effort and products then men and there is an assumption men will have short hair and women won’t, things just haven’t been updated with the times. And that there is an idea that women are more likely to go for a haircut rather than go to a barber or do it themselves, so they because they are willing to pay and pay more for a good haircut, salons know they can charge them more. One brought up that there is now a “dry cut” where they spritz your hair rather than shampoo it, but when I looked at prices to compare I used the lowest comparable cut for a man and woman. One of those was a dry cut for a woman, for the men’s it did not specify dry or not and it was still cheaper for the men’s.

Her article was posted in 2017 and she suggested some salons were starting to change. If that is reflected in the difference between the $28 difference she found and the $11 difference I found, then maybe it is hopeful it will continue to improve. She also talked about changes in other facets where women were charged more than men, like how women’s razors are more expensive than men’s tend to be priced, and how companies are starting to bring the prices closer. Which, I suppose, is all well and good. But, why bring the price’s closer rather than just make them both gender neutral? Is a man’s skin and hair so different from a woman’s that they need to have separate products? I mean, really? What would happen if I just bought a man’s razor? Sure, it wouldn’t be pink but it would still work.

Actually, there was an event that gave out free men’s razors and it is probably one of the best razor’s I’ve ever used. It is The Gillette Fusion5. It has a mostly metal handle and it takes reusable blades. It costs approx. $13 for the handle and two blades. While most razors for men have a metal handle and made to be reusable, rather disposable, women’s tend to be plastic and disposable. So, it was hard to find a comparable razor. The Gillette Venus Swirl, is most comparable. It has an almost fully plastic handle with a metal ball to allow for more swiveling (the Fusion5 swivels just fine, as is so it seems unnecessary). They both have five blades as well. It does have a little like comb before the razor, to pull up hair better that the Fusion5 doesn’t have. But the Fusion5 has a precision trimmer on the back (which means it has an additional blade), which the Venus Swirl doesn’t have. The Venus Swirl and 2 blades costs $15. It looks cheaper and more breakable and it still costs more. Significantly more considering that I got my Fusion5 for free.

It just seems weird to me.  I wonder, if I asked for a man's haircut, would it be cheaper or would they just look at me like I'm crazy? 

Post 177: QD: "What do most people like, but won't admit to liking?"

I get daily email updates from Quora Digest. I don’t really know why. It isn’t all that different than Yahoo! Answers. There are a lot of people who ask questions they could easily look up themselves, but don’t. There are people asking dumb questions or giving stories about their life that sort of relate but don’t actually answer the question. But sometimes, you get some thought provoking questions or some educated answers. The question that I was thinking about today is: “what do you think most people secretly like, but won’t admit?”

The top answer was something about sex and how all people are perverts. But, that doesn’t seem like much of a secret. I don’t know anyone is like “I hate sex” or will deny liking it, if they are in a situation where they are asked and it is an appropriate situation to ask. I mean, if a stranger asked me if I liked strawberries, I might say no because I’m weirded out by the random question. I mean, it isn’t saying something that people like/enjoy but don’t tell strangers they like/enjoy. This is something they hide, something that probably even their friends wouldn’t necessarily know. Plus, it is talking on a wide scale. It is “most people” not some. I know people who have declared that they like the smell of their own farts or that they like cutting the dead skin off their feet. So compared to those kinds of things, that maybe they shouldn’t be telling others, sex just doesn’t seem like an answer that fits the question.

So, I thought about it and I think I got it. I think I have an answer that fits, but is actually really quite the opposite to the top answer. Kid’s stuff. I know a lot of people who like kid stuff but don’t want to admit it. There are adults that have closets full of stuffed animals, that like kid’s movies like Barbie, that like Build-A-Bear, etc.

Do you know the stigma around walking into a Build-A-Bear as an adult? I read this woman who wrote an article telling adults not to go into Build-A-Bear as an adult because it was a horrible experience for her, do you know why it was a horrible experience for her? Because they treated her like a customer. They were friendly, they encouraged her to do the things they ask kids to do when getting a bear, they asked her to name the bear. She was basically traumatized by the fact that they thought she wanted to buy a bear for herself. When I was 17, my friend and I both went in and she got a bear. I didn’t that day because it is expensive and I didn’t really have cash. She wouldn’t go by herself, despite wanting the bear, because she was scared of going alone. When we went, I think we both giggled as we tried to nonchalantly enter the store because we felt awkward and judged, despite the fact that no one probably cared that much. It was weird how awkward it was. We were still teenagers, we were not far off from being kids, but we still felt somehow too old to be in the store. It felt like we didn’t really belong, like being underage in a liquor store. But we were overage in a toy store.

“Aren’t you a little old to have stuffed animals?”

“Aren’t you a little old to be watching that?”

“Aren’t you a little old to be playing that?”

People roll their eyes at Barbie movies and won’t say out in the open that they like them, but if you find them on YouTube there is inevitably a comment saying they are an adult that still likes Barbie movies and they will have hundreds of likes. Through the anonymity of a screen name, they can admit that they still like “kid’s movies”.

Even with Disney, they have worked hard to market themselves as a “for all ages” kind of brand and yet a lot of people won’t watch the movies or admit to watching them after a certain age. And you certainly don’t see as many people dressed up as Dinsey characters after the age of 16. Those who do, are often in more sexualized versions of the costume to make it more “adult appropriate”.

I think this is something that is getting better as more people come to the attitude of “why should I stop doing what I enjoy, just because I am older?” And with the prevalence of the extreme cases of people doing this (i.e. Bronies, who are adult men obsessed with My Little Ponies sometimes to the extreme of sexualizing the animated ponies), being an adult that just enjoys watching cartoons isn’t quite as shocking.

I sort of like Spongebob Squarepants. Now, I’m not clamoring over myself to keep up with new episodes or buying the merchandise. Mostly I like it because it is mindless, but not annoyingly so. It is like Family Guy/American Dad for kids. Saying I like American Dad or Family Guy seems more normal than saying I like Spongebob. Both with American Dad/Family Guy and Spongebob, they are more like white noise. I put them on while doing something else because I enjoy it enough that it provides a nice sort of background thing, but doesn’t demand so much attention that it distracts from whatever else I’m doing. And yet, one seems more acceptable than the other.

There are a lot of shows, games, and other things that have come out for kids now that seem so cool. I mean, sometimes I’m jealous that I was born twenty years earlier than their release. I mean, they different kinds of Monopoly alone these days is crazy. Apples to Apples was a game I really enjoyed too, (it is basically like Cards Against Against Humanity for kids). And now it seems like a kid game.

There are so many people that talk about how they like babysitting because it is an excuse to have tea parties, watch Disney movies, etc. So, I think that in the end, more than sex, people secretly like but won’t admit that they like kid’s stuff.

Post 176: Why Ross Wouldn't be My Friend

I don't like Ross. When Rachel got off the plane to be with him. I was more than a little upset. She was giving up a major opportunity to be with a guy who clearly did not appreciate her work or support her dreams. I mean, she didn't say she was going to stay in France forever. And he considered moving to England to be with Emily, but decided not to because of Ben. But Ben is older now and Emma, his other child who is younger so less able to travel to visit him, would likely be going with Rachel. Really, if he cared about her, he would have encouraged her to go live her dreams. She was really excited about going and it was a great opportunity. If it continued, I would be willing to bet that she resented him for keeping her from that opportunity.  He showed little to no growth, he never stopped being possessive of her and clearly never learned how important her work is to her. None of the things that they fought about in the past are resolved, it is only a matter of time before they come up again except now she will have this major opportunity weighing against them.

Anyway, here are a few of the reasons I dislike Ross. Though, there are many more. 

Cheater:

The whole "we were on a break" thing for starters. Psychology Today defines a break as "not a breakup: It's a pause from the other person—a period to think without having to be around the other person during the thinking period." As Rachel said "we should take a break" the implication is that it is, in fact, a break not a break up. And, therefore, they were technically still together and Ross cheated. His constant insistence that "we were on a break" doesn't help this either, because even in that he says "we were on a break" not "we were broken up". 

Also, some people have said it was never even decided on. She said, "Look, maybe we should take a break....from us." And then he stormed out. So, it was technically left at "maybe".

Now, as it is a bit of a misunderstanding where he took it to mean broken up, not on a break. It could be argued that it wasn't really cheating. 

If we take out the "we were on a break" thing, Ross still doesn't have the best romantic track record in that regard. He said Rachel's name at his wedding with Elizabeth. He cheated on Julie with Rachel. He cheated on Bonnie with Rachel.  When on a date with another woman, he spent most of the night flirting with his ex-wife. He kissed Charlie despite her being with Joey. Despite dating Mona, he said he would marry Rachel when he found she was pregnant. 

Even if it is taken as a break up rather than a break, he waited less than three hours before sleeping with someone else. And it wasn't just someone else, it was someone that both his closest friends also liked. 

Hypocritical: 

Despite being a cheater himself, he is constantly controlling and overprotective of his girlfriends and love interests without taking into consideration how they feel. He follows Elizabeth, his college age girlfriend, on Spring Break. Because he doesn't trust her not to cheat on him. He embarrasses Rachel in front of a guy she is talking to and throws away phone messages for her from other guys when they are not even dating. When they are dating, he constantly embarrasses her at work and is incredibly paranoid about her even spending time with other guys, which leads to them needing to take a break to begin with. He even considers having one of her love interests departed even though she and Ross hadn't even gone on a date. 

Meanwhile, as he gets upset at Rachel for talking to a male coworker, he is going out to strip clubs. When Elizabeth is rightly worried about him spending time with his first love, ex-girlfriend (who I believe he has actually dated on and off like three times at this point), and closest female friend who also happens to be the person whose name he said at the their wedding, he says he won't do it. Actually, he says he will do it and that he won't spend as much time with her, but then does anyway. He practically asks Rachel to quit her job so she won't be around Mark, and she never even went on a date with him and last he knew Mark was seeing someone else. 

He is constantly talking about work. He does not leave it alone and is constantly trying to get his friends to come to his talks and other talks about his subject area. He practically has an emotional breakdown trying to get them ready to go to a work dinner. He interrupts his first date with Rachel to go to work and constantly puts work first. He expects her to understand that he takes his work seriously, but cannot be bothered to even fake interest in hers. He insists on going with Rachel to a fashion talk (just so she won't go with Mark) pretending he is interested, but then gets bored and basically acts like a child trying to get her attention for the first few minutes and then falls asleep. When she brings up the talk she went to with him and her lack of interest, he basically responds "well, that talk was interesting". He doesn't even concede that they like different things. 

When his child comes over with a Barbie, after picking it out himself, he spends the entire time that Ben is there with him trying to manipulate his son into picking a more "masculine" toy. Considering we learn that he actually used to dress up as a woman, that is even more hypocritical. Other than being against his son having a Barbie, he also ends firing his daughter's male nanny because it seemed weird to him. Despite the fact that the nanny was perfect otherwise and got along great with Emma. 

Insecurities and Overconfidence: 

Based on his insecurities and inability to trust that his girlfriend won't cheat him if given the choice, you'd really think he wouldn't be as overconfident as he is. Rachel makes it very clear that she thinks what he did was cheating, so when she calls to meet with him the fact that he just assumed that she had stopped being crazy and realized life without him sucks is presumptuous (exact quote is: "Well, maybe the crazy fog has lifted and she realizes that life without me.... a-sucks..." from The One With the Tiny T-Shirt). 

And then after they sleep together and she gets pregnant, she tells him she wants to talk to him. She wants to talk to him, because she is pregnant but he assumes it is because he is just too good a lover (I guess?) that women can't just sleep with him once (exact quote is: "I’m just not the type of guy women can have just one night with. Y’know, they-they always seem to want a little bit more." from The One Where Rachel Tells...). Despite the fact that they have slept with each other on more than one occasion while dating. 

This comes a lot with his relationship to his parents. They constantly brag about him and are far more supportive of him than of Monica. In only the second episode of the show their parents are over and basically tell Monica that she isn't made to do great things like Ross is and they go on for along time, with him right there. He literally says nothing. When they go home and it turns out that their father used Monica's boxes of memories to create a wall to protect his Porsche, he helps move his stuff into Monica's boxes (though, clearly doesn't remember their childhood well enough to know what she was actually like). He still makes it about himself wanting to hear his dad tell him about he is a medical marvel while they work. He then gets upset that Monica gets the Porsche instead of him because of it. 

He is incapable of admitting he made a mistake. He gets married to Rachel when they are drunk and instead of getting divorced, he lies to her and tells her he did it because he doesn't want to be "three divorce guy". After their break up, he had a chance to get back together with her if he admitted it was his fault. Which it was. He was the one whose insecurities, jealousy, and lack of respect for her work led to the their constant fighting and the break. On the break, while she contemplated getting back together with him, he slept with someone else. Even if he didn't think he cheated, she made it clear she thought he did and he never apologized for hurting her that way. Most of their fighting about it and running joke for the next season or so was him asserting that "we were on a break". Not, "I made assumptions that we were broken up and that was wrong". He would rather be "right" and deny any culpability, than be with her. Even after he showed up at her office for their anniversary, despite her saying she was too busy, he took over her whole desk and accidentally lit things on fire. He got in her way, he distracted her, he could have burned down the office and when she gets home exhausted after he expects her to apologize for asking him to leave and doesn't see how what he did was wrong or obtrusive in any way.



When she had dreams about the other guys in their friend  group he was jealous but then he practically jumped her while she was having a dream about him. As if the dream was consent to actually do something. She didn't want to sleep with Joey or Chandler after dreaming about them, so why would she want to sleep with him? Honestly, with this in mind rewatching the show makes more sense why he is possessive of her, she exists as his ideal. He always liked her because of her looks and so when it comes to her personality when they are actually together, they often clash (he expresses at multiple points that he thinks she isn't very bright, she is spoiled, and is often vain). He keeps other guys from getting her and doesn't want her with anyone else, even when he is with someone else for that reason. This I think comes up in the fact that he kept count of every time they had sex, which seems really weird and not normal.

Bad Father:

There were 236 episodes of Friends. Of those, Ross's son Ben only appears in 24 of them. Of those 24, one of them involves Ross entrusting the care of a then infant Ben to Joey and Chandler, who leave him on the bus. In another he leaves Ben with Rachel, who couldn't even look after his monkey for one night without losing him. Despite Ben only being in a few episodes, Ross uses his son to get out of things by claiming to watch him to get out of things. He says he can't move to England because of Ben, but he got married without Ben so it doesn't seem like Ben is that big a factor in his life. And then after he has Emma with Rachel, we essentially never see Ben again. 

Emma is also very rarely seen and even when she is seen, she is seen just as often with other friends in the group that Ross. In fact, Joey seems to have a closer relationship with her than Ross. And Ross seemed to have no issue with Emma going to Paris with Rachel. In fact, all of his concerns were around Rachel going. Not once did he bring up being separated from his daughter, or show any indication that he was going to spend any time with his daughter before she went to Paris with her mom or that he had any plans to visit her. 

I mean, Emma was staying with Rachel's mom while she got settled in Paris. Why wouldn't the child's father be the one watching her? Why couldn't he be the one to take her to Paris? Better yet, why isn't he the one taking her? He is her father, shouldn't he actually be acting like it? 

Post 175: QD: "What is the funniest reason you have been sent home from school?"

Recently I saw a question come through on Quora that asked "what is the funniest reason you have been asked to pick up your child from school?" After that I started to think about the reasons I was sent home from school when I was younger.

Three, in particular, stood out. Though, I don't know if any of them would be considered funny. All stories are based on a combination of my memory of the events and what I've heard about the event. I cannot guarantee that they are 100% factual, as memories from when I was young are not always clear.

The first is when I was relatively young and still had some of my baby teeth. One of them was starting to come out and I could tell it was loose. I told the teacher but she didn't believe me and wouldn't let me go to the nurse. I didn't leave it alone and eventually ended up sort of just...pulling it out all the way. Which led to a fair amount of blood coming from my mouth. So, I remember walking towards the teacher with my tooth in hand and blood dripping out of my mouth, because I was a drama queen, and asked to go to the nurse. I don't remember if I was sent home, but I know I didn't go back to music class that day.

I don't know what it was about music class, but the second story also happened in music class. I think, even the same class, which explains why the teacher might not have believed me when I said I didn't feel well. To be fair, my tooth actually did come out, so it wasn't like I lied about that. Anyway, I said I didn't feel well, and once again I was not allowed to go to the nurse. So, about five minutes later, I threw up on the xylophone that I had been assigned to play. After that, I was allowed to go to the nurse. I remember the teacher practically dragging me by the collar down the hall while shoving a garbage can into my stomach as we went. They sent me home for sure after that.

To be clear, I didn't choose to throw up on the xylophone. It was a music circle and we randomly got instruments and I was playing and then...it just sort of happened without much warning.

If I remember correctly, I was fairly sick and my mom had an event so I just slept underneath the registration table. But that might have been a different time I was sick.

My mom says I used to say I was sick a lot, in particular on school days. But that was before I knew I was lactose intolerant and the school only had the option of a tiny like 1/4 cup juice box or a pint of milk. And I liked milk and there was more of it, so I got that. And sometimes I would trade some of my fries or food for my friends' milk because they didn't want it. So, it could be that I was suffering the effects of lactose intolerance, but it could just be that I didn't want to be in class because I had ADD and got bored easily.

The third time that I remember being sent home, I was not sick. I was on my way to school, I'd been riding on a scooter and I guess I fell in a puddle? I don't even really remember falling. But apparently I arrived at school (on time) but covered in mud and so the teachers/nurse insisted that I had to go home and change if not also shower. At the time my mom worked pretty far away and could really just leave to take me home to change, especially because we lived like five blocks away at most. So, she gave them permission to take me home and (I think) it was an office aid who ended up driving me home. I vaguely remember the car, but mostly I remember thinking the entire way home, "I hope the door isn't locked, because I don't have my key and how am I supposed to explain that". Thankfully, it wasn't locked. I think my stepdad was home but had been on a conference call or something so I couldn't call him? I don't really remember. But it worked out because after I changed I was able to actually find my key and then the lady from school drove me back.

My clothes were pretty messy, but it was not all that bad and I probably would have dried just fine. Meanwhile, one day on my way home I was so drenched it looked like I jumped in the pool fully dressed. Which I ended up actually doing just because by the time I got home it was like, "why not? And then I can say I've done it". Part of the reason was because the crosswalks were low and curbs were high and the city didn't usually get much rain so they were backed up pretty high with water. Like up to my knees. A lot of people walked in the road to try to avoid some of the water.

If I had been on my way to school, they definitely would have sent me home to change again. But I wasn't, so it worked out. Those are really the main times I remember being sent home that aren't just a very basic "was sick, was sent home".

I do remember being sick for like a week and I missed school because I had bronchitis and then when I went back, for three days following my return I wasn't allowed to cook in Foods class. And if I so much as coughed or sniffled or yawned the following week and a half, I wasn't allowed to cook that day either. But I wasn't sent home. I just had to sit at the table and do nothing. It was not unlike study hall or detention, which was so frustrating because it was the last class of the day! I'd have much rather gone home.

Post 174: What’s next? Pineapple Pepsi?

There is a bit of fitness and health trend that has led to less people drinking soda and more people avoiding artificial sweeteners. Which isn’t great for the soda industry. In response, a lot of soda companies are making some pretty weird flavors. Pepsi has come out with Mango, Berry, and Lime. I get lime. Restaurants often had a lime or lemon to your drink, so it is often associated with cola. Mango and berry…seem pretty weird. I have now tried both Mango and Berry. Berry is okay, it isn’t that different from cherry. It tastes kind of like you are drinking Pepsi and eating gummy worms at the same time. Mango was not bad, really. Or good. I have had the Pepsi Mango (591mL) bottle for over a week. I’m starting to get concerned it will go bad before I finish it. It is just too very strong, very sweet flavors competing. It definitely tastes like mango, with kind of a chemically cola aftertaste and a weird fizziness.  It was weird.

Coca Cola also game out with new flavors. Including six different flavors of Diet Coke, each seeming weirder than the last. The newest are strawberry guava and blueberry acai. I haven’t tried either, and have not been eager to try either, despite liking strawberry. The other flavors are ginger lime, twisted mango, zesty blood orange, and feisty cherry. Orange and lime aren’t too weird. They tie into the citrus flavor that is not uncommonly associated with cola. The mango isn’t as sweet as the Pepsi Mango. Feisty cherry is like a cinnamon cherry flavor. It is weird. It’s like a slightly spicy version of diet cherry coke.  There was also raspberry Coca Cola. Which is a really similar flavor profile to Pepsi Berry. There is also a lime Coca Cola and they brought back a vanilla Coca Cola.

Overall, I don’t think I actually really like any of them. I like Feisty Cherry probably the most of all of the ones that I have tried. But maybe I would actually like the Diet Coke Strawberry Guava, Diet Coke Blueberry Acai, or Pepsi Lime.  I don’t know. Overall, the new flavors seem weird more than anything else.

Post 173: Less than a sidekick, but still the main character.

Is having a relative or friend that is cooler or smarter than you are your greatest achievement? If so, A Wrinkle in Time and Epic are movies you will really empathize with. Epic is a movie where a girl is chosen to help save a race of tiny people (think Fern Gully but with less humor, a forced and awkward romance, no moral/message, and no Robin Williams) where she is told that she was chosen for a reason. The ending conclusion? She was chosen…to fetch her dad. But only sort of because it really came down to her leaving a push pin in a map. Despite his tantrum where he said he was done looking for them and the fact that he was convinced she left, he decides to show up anyway and doesn’t seem surprised that she is tiny and arrives at the exact right time to save the day. And then even after he shows up, basically she just uses his phone to play bat sounds and that was really his whole part. So, it is a good thing that the bud thing used its magic to shrink her down to be there to use her dad’s iPod rather than use its magic to stop the Queen from dying.

Wrinkle in Time, the movie at least, seems to carry a similar ending message. The main character is the older sister of a genius. Her role is to be a pessimistic, screw up and to just sort of be there in the end to tell her brother, she loves him. But it also seems to suggest that if she hadn’t been there a lot of what happened could have been avoided in the first place. So…why did she need to be there?

For those who know Buffy the Vampire Slayer, there is a scene where Willow witnesses the love her life murdered in front of her. Her best friend is also shot. She is devastated and basically loses it and turns into what could basically be described as a black magic goddess and goes on a bit of a revenge spree. She targets the people responsible for her friend’s near death and girlfriend’s death then decides that isn’t enough. Her best friend who almost died, Buffy, has to fight her because she has turned evil. Her father-figure Giles has to try to fight her. And no matter what she is still stuck in darkness. She is about to bring about the end of the world when her other best friend and the friend she had the longest shows up and stands in her way and as she attacks him and tries to scare him away he continues to tell her he loves her. He tells her over and over until she comes back to her senses.

The end scene in Wrinkle of Time was like a weak version of that scene, but instead of fighting with his own darkness her brother was fighting against a force of darkness that I feel like was never explained as thoroughly as it should have been. And he pushes her around but being as powerful as it is supposed to be, it seems like it could have killed her or just made her disappear or something, but no. She serves as a reminder of his humanity, but as the movie seems to imply she is the main character it certainly seems like she should have more of a purpose than that. He could have looked in the mirror and seen himself and had an epiphany. Wonder Woman was about to kill a psychopath responsible for so many deaths and realized that wasn’t who she was through a memory of Steve. Thumbelina decided not to marry because the ring she received from her past fiancé reminded her of him and even though she thought he was dead that was enough for her to call off the wedding. Now those aren’t the exact same situation, it is comparable and her big moment at the end could have been replaced by an inanimate object, memory, or his own reflection.

You know what it seems like (to me at least)? Like they were trying so hard to make it a female protagonist, that they just slipped the character in even though they didn’t do anything. It would have been more interesting if her dad shrank down instead or if her brother was the main character. If they’re not going to have a role in the story, they certainly shouldn’t be the main character. It would be like if instead of James Bond movies focusing on him having some random girl be the main character and acting like Bond having to save her somehow made her the actual hero.

In both movies the most interesting characters are in it the least, while this wet blanket character acts as the central point. Yeah, it sucks your dad is always working. Boohoo. You literally shrank down to the size of a thumbtack and are involved in what is suggested to be some epic good vs evil battle that looks like it will actually have an effect on the world as a whole (though how and what that implies are never brought up) but sure keep complaining about how your dad doesn’t spend all his time with you and goof around while lives literally hang in the balance.

I’d rather not have a main female character than a fake main female character. I don’t want some stock character who is there just to be there for diversity. If they’re not going to serve a purpose, then lose them.  

Post 172: Thoughts after Avengers: Endgame

I really empathize with Hawkeye in Avengers: Endgame. Imagine you are on a cruise with your family, everyone you care about, and everyone you admire. The cruise ship starts to sink, so everyone scurries to the lifeboats. You are separated from your family and friends, but make it to a life boat. You are there desperately trying to see if your loved ones made it to your life boat, to the other lifeboats around you. You see some of them, but not your family and not everyone. Your family is gone, half of the people you care most about are gone. And you find out it is because there wasn’t enough space for everyone in the life boats. Maybe, you would have gladly given up your space in the lifeboat. You are hurt enough as it is that they died, while you lived. And then you find out that there were murders, pedophiles, human traffickers, and rapists on the lifeboats. Your family died. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people including children all died, while these criminals lived. More than that, they died specifically because the others lived. And it isn’t like this changes their ways and they decide to be better people, nothing changes for them. They continue to hurt those who survived. It would be hard not to hate them. In Hawkeyes’ case it wasn’t a cruise, it was Thanos and it wasn’t hundreds or thousands that died, it was billions.

The survivor’s guilt alone probably made him hate himself. He would have gladly died for them, for even one of them. He probably thought they deserved to live more and hated himself for surviving while they died. Hating the criminals that survived probably both helped him alleviate his hatred towards himself, but gave him a purpose. A way of reasoning why he would survive without his family.

I thought the movie had some good humor and some interesting twists. But, there were some big questions I had about the overall time travel. They make fun of time travel a lot so the fact they had such weird plot holes made no sense. I think it is less about it not making sense overall and less they didn’t explain it. For example, Thanos comes from the past to the future and they kill Thanos. With the big push to “not change the timeline, you can’t be seen, everything has to be put back where it came from”, Thanos is a pretty big absence from the timeline. It actually creates multiple diverging timelines.

In the second time line (Tony/Steve/Scott), Steve tells them in the elevator that he knows that they are working for Hydra and Loki disappears after being captured at the end of the first movie. Who knows how that effects the timeline? Captain America also sees Captain America, but because Loki disappeared it is entirely possible that it is explained as Loki’s doing.

In the next time line Rocket removes the stone from Jane and Thor meets his mother, he even temporarily takes his hammer.

In another, Natasha dies and Thanos, Gamora, and Nebula learn about the future. This timeline is the least fixable. If Steve goes back he can maybe fix the Thor/Rocket timeline, depending on the time he went back he might even be able to fix the Tony/Steve/Scott timeline, though it would be hard to return the stone and recapture Loki without running into his past self from that time or the past self that took the stone in the first place. So, it is likely Loki will still be MIA.

And then the final timelines are not really fixable at all. Past Nebula is dead. Past Thanos is dead. Maybe Past Gamora went back into the past, but that would create another time line. She might be able to take down Ronan herself and dismantle Thanos’ following since his army and advisors basically all died in the future. And with Thanos dead and without a need for the stone the whole first Guardians of the Galaxy really wouldn’t have happened. Either because Quill wouldn’t have been sent to fetch the stone, or because he went to get it and ended up being captured by Rocket and Groot and sent to jail. In which case, both her going back and staying would be the same because without her there to start a fight, they wouldn’t have been arrested together or banded together. But, if she doesn’t go back, Ronan would still likely try to take the stone. And without them working together, Ronan would have succeeded in destroying the planet. If he still had the stone when they turned him in, Ronan would kill everyone in the prison including Drax and Quill. Or, if Rocket and Groot kept it, he would have killed them.

So, there isn’t really a way to fix that. I think instead of a three hour movie, they should have split this into another two movies. Because I want to know how Steve got everything back! It took teams of 2/3 people each to get these things gone in the first place! Loki disappeared, he saw himself, SHIELD officers think he knows that SHIELD=Hydra, he can’t put it back before they took them because then two would exist. And he can’t put them back in the exact moment, because he could run into either of his past selves. Or do more damage. He has to wait a certain amount of time, but not too long either. And did he even take a ship? How is he going to get into space? Does he put all of the stones back? Surely, some of them didn’t need to go back. Like what about the stone that brought Vision to life, couldn’t they have kept that and brought Vision back? Why not destroy one of the stones (like the one someone has to die to get) and then put the rest back so NO ONE can pull a Thanos in any future.

Plus, how did Steve explain his presence to Peggy? Did he tell her that he was alive and under the ice and was from the future? What did he do as a job? He was relatively famous, did people not recognize him? He knows Bucky is a live, does he try to find him in the timeline? He meets Peggy again when she is old in their timeline, so does that Peggy know him or is it a new timeline entirely. But it can’t be a totally different timeline because he is sitting on the bench as an old man to pass the mantle on. I just have too many question. And I don’t think it is because any of them are unanswerable. They just ran out of time.

This is a question that has actually only come up recently, but I was thinking about it and I’m seriously wondering what happened to mess up the future in Endgame. Dr. Strange insisted that Stark live. Which makes sense, Stark is who actually defeated Thanos and brought about a victory in the end, in more ways that one. Without Tony, they wouldn’t have been able to time travel to get the stones. And without Tony, even if they brought everyone back they will would have all died when Thanos snapped again. So, Dr. Strange had to save Tony.

Dr. Strange knew this. He went through the possible futures and saw how many of them they actually won and defeated Thanos. Tony asks him and Strange says he can’t tell Tony, because if he tells Tony it won’t happen. But then, in the final moments of battle, Tony looks to Strange and Strange singles that it was one. That he saw only one future where they defeat Thanos. And that spurns Tony into the action be took that leads to their victory. But, that also seems to suggest that it isn’t true that he couldn’t tell him. He did tell him in the end. And if he hadn’t told him, he might not have jumped in and did what he did. Which makes me wonder, if there were more but at that point other things had happened to reduce their chances.

I didn’t actually see Dr. Strange. Which might be why I’m confused about how he sees the future. If he sees all the possible (or even some/most) of the possibilities, how much does he know about each future? There is a movie with Nicolas Cage, I can’t remember what it is called but he basically can go through different possibilities to see what happens but it seems limited to what is in his knowledge and the possibilities he looks to explore (ie. “If I go left or right what happens?” But he doesn’t also know what would happen if he turned around.) He asked for Tony to be spared which means he knew that Tony would play a major part in the ending. And people say he specifically planned the timing so that the snap would happen while Ant Man was in the Quantam Realm. But, without Nebula going back in the future, past Thanos wouldn’t have come to the present. Without Natasha, Clint wouldn’t have come back to the Avengers. He didn’t even ask about Captain Marvel, was the assumption just that she would be safe? Though, her character was really minimally present and almost unnecessary. I mean, Scarlet Witch actually did more damage to Thanos than she did. Plus, she was absent for so much of the movie. And I get it, she says it herself that she is going around to other planets too but it just leads to more questions. Like wasn’t there a sort of galactic police force introduced in Guardians? And what about the Guardians themselves, even before the snap how did they not cross paths? How is Earth the only planet that had heroes/superheroes?

Anyway, back to my original question, there are so many characters that brought about the victory. Yes, having Ant Man was important. But if Captain Marvel hadn’t been there to save Tony he would have died, if Pepper hadn’t been there to keep Tony sane, he probably wouldn’t have been of any help to anyone.

Steve and Natasha also probably knew the most about Fury and the pager too. I mean, it really seems like it wasn’t just Tony, the people who survived are the exact people that needed to survive for them to win. Which is why I wonder if Tony was originally going to be snapped away and that is why Strange specifically asked for him to be spared. Which actually also leads me to another question, if Thanos could specify who he gets rid of and what, why did he just specify half? Why didn’t he specifically target like everyone who was violent? Or just certain families? Was it just a lack of empathy that lead him to not realize that if he killed half of all living things that it would cause them pain? With his power, could he not have done something to specify the most violent/cruel people would be those to die? Or even those people and their connections, so that there would be no one left to really miss them or be sad they’re gone.

If a family of ten loses 5 people, they will obviously be very upset. If a family of ten hears about the disappearance of another family of ten, they will feel sympathy but more than that relief it wasn’t them. And I know Thanos agreed to keep Tony alive, but can he really not specify more than that to get rid of all Avengers but Tony? If he really had no control beyond a few, then he could have snapped away everyone good leaving only the most violent? I don’t know I said it earlier. But I think this should have been two movies. I am just left with so many questions. And I feel like we totally miss out on seeing Nebula and Rocket bond. I think they would be a really interesting relationship duo to explore. Both of them started out as normal and were experimented on and medically altered with technology against their will from a young age. Rocket doesn’t like talking about what happened to him, but I think if anyone would understand it would be Nebula. They are both not used to affection or compassion and have a loose sense of right and wrong.

Also, like I get that scene that everyone is freaking out about is when Captain Marvel gets the gauntlet from Peter Parker and he asks how she is going to get it across and all the women show up to have her back but…what can Mantis do? Like, if Captain Marvel is supposed to be that strong and with Scarlet Witch, should they have even really needed the rest? Can’t Dr. Strange create teleport portals? Why couldn’t he just create a portal between Peter and the van? Or himself and Peter and then to the van?

I mean, yes the scene had me like “women represent” but it also had me like…okay but are they only all there because they are women? Like, it is the middle of a battle that decides the fate of literally every single life form on the planet, I think making sure that the best people for the task are always the one on the task regardless of gender.

The whole Thor plot line was a little questionable. Like, they constantly seemed to be making fun of his weight quite a bit. If they had pulled that with any of the female characters, people would have had a fit. I mean, they even had Rocket grossed out by being hugged by him with a close up on Thor’s beer belly. Like...they’ve all been through some serious crap. Tony had serious PTSD that I don’t think they ever explained if it went away, it seems like it just sort of stopped being an issue they talked about. Meanwhile, Thor is clearly going through a traumatic time. And the fact they were all surprised shows that no one had been there to see him. They basically just all went their separate ways instead of making sure that they were okay. And some of them were definitely not okay. I mean, sure Steve ran support groups but he literally risked the timeline to stay back with Peggy, so he was clearly not over his loss either.

Post 171: No to Starbucks Sippy Cups

Not a fan of the Starbucks sippy cup. In order to prevent further straw pollution and be more eco-friendly, Starbucks has redesigned the lids of their cold drinks to look and work like adult sippy cups. But this does not work well. When the cold drinks sit, the liquid sinks and the ice floats. And when the ice sits on top and the liquid goes to the bottom (as well as the flavor) the first half of the drink tastes like watered down slush and the last half is way too sweet.

Paper straws or biodegradable straws would have been so much better. You wouldn’t want to drink a Slurpee without a straw. That is what it is like drinking a Frappuccino without a straw. I would much rather have a paper straw or even pay an extra $1 for a metal straw. You can buy re-usable metal straws in bulk online for like $0.23 each, so they’d be making money off selling metal straws and they’d still be green. In fact, they could sell branded metal straws and it would get their brand out as well as being green. It’d be like their reusable coffee mugs but at a cheaper price point, so if offered whenever someone bought a cold drink (especially if their other option was straight sippy cup) they are likely to buy it.

And really, that seems cheaper than redesigning the lids anyway. Which probably had to go through testing both on the practicality/utility level as well as customer acceptance level. And as they make new lids and test the different kinds, that would have cost money and time. And since I saw at least six people getting straws from somewhere else (like the nearby Tim Hortons) it isn’t really reducing the waste of straws.

Sippy cups are not the solution.

I don’t generally get Starbucks anyway, though. I generally find it over to be overpriced. For the same price of just a medium Frappuccino at Starbucks, I can get a large iced cappuccino and a bagel at Tim Hortons (plus, I like Tim’s Iced Capps better).

Post 169: Lactose Intolerance and Respect in Business pt. 2

Click here to read Part 1. 

It is hard to exactly relay the events that occurred through the last metaphor I used. So, I will try my best but it might be a little weird. Basically, last time, the overall metaphor was a catering company at an event that was already approved to come through and the people at the event had to pay for grilled cheese despite being lactose intolerant. The people asked if they could just have bread or toast, but their requests were refused. They were also told that if they didn’t get a grilled cheese, no one at the table was allowed to have one either.

To me, the big red flags were in terms of just blatant disrespect. But, I still suspected she would order the grilled cheese. And I was right. In doing so, everyone got a grilled cheese, and let’s say, after everyone was able to order they symbolically protested the grilled cheese at a lactose intolerant dominated lunch.

(Realizing now that it might have been easier to make the metaphor with Vegans).

Now, in the end she basically ordered the grilled cheese anyway because she was told that no one else could order unless she ordered. So, taking a step back, if she was on a committee over seeing an event, she is told they have to order grilled cheese. If she doesn’t order it, no one gets any at her table or any other table. But, her table is also the only table that gets a say, if they all order then the other tables can order too. If she doesn’t order, no one gets anything. So she orders, so that the other tables can order and when they find out that they can only get grilled cheese, they are upset. Together, now that they’ve all been asked to order, they tell the catering company that no, they will not eat the grilled cheese and petition for a new catering company.

On the one hand, I think this was a good turn of events. Because she ordered, it gave everyone else a chance to order. If she had said no, no one would have gotten anything and they wouldn’t have known why they weren’t getting anything other than that it was her fault somehow. But this sort of assumes both that enough people will be lactose intolerant or realize the inconvenience to those who are and that enough people will stand up and say something.

It could have easily gone the other way and they’d have been stuck with grilled cheese sandwiches and with the authority they got from rolling over this time, maybe the catering company would come back with a just a slice of cheese option.

I think she had to have a lot of faith in the people at the other tables to put the decision up to them and hope they’d make the call that they did. And the bigger issue is on the end of the place that hires the catering company. What if they decide to ignore the petition? All the wiggle room will be gone if the place hosting the event says they still have to use that catering company anyway. And once they’ve been given that authority regardless of the opinions of those on the committee or attending the event, they likely won’t even bother to ask anything at all going forward.

Too many other people (those who can eat cheese and, perhaps, don’t believe or support those who are lactose intolerant) might like and support the catering company to make expensive changes on behalf of the non-grilled cheese eaters.

Is it better then if they still continue to serve grilled cheese? Does giving people a voice negate the problems of accepting the disrespect, if the outcome doesn’t really change.

It is just such a hard dilemma. I believe I said this last time as well, I’m glad it is not a decision I had to make.

Post 168: Celebrity Sightings and Keeping Cool

I am aggressively eating a gummy worm as I type this. I had a realization today that has thrown me for a bit of a loop. I would like to think that if I met a celebrity I wouldn’t freak out. I’ve met Kyle Massey. In like 2006-2007, I was 14/15. He was with his friends at a Dave and Busters at the Irvine Spectrum Mall in California. I was there with two of my friends, one of whom played DDR with him. It was a brief hang out. I believe they exchanged numbers, but she was pretty in love with one of the Jonas Brothers, so if anything she would have texted to see if he had their number.

If you are in Southern California and want to meet a celebrity, Irvine Spectrum and Fashion Island are the malls to hang out at. At Irvine Spectrum, I also ran into Vince Vaughn and Rebecca Black. At Fashion Island, I ran into Lo Bosworth. At a restaurant near them both, a teppanyaki place, I ran into Kobe Bryant.

Actually, he ran into me. Literally. He practically ran me over.

If you don’t know, a teppanyaki place has a big flat stove where the entire thing is one big heating surface. Around the stove is a table for people to eat. There are usually at least 8, but as many as 16, chairs around that. Like an island bar, but instead of a bar it is a stove. Chefs prepare your food right in front of you. Because of how big these are and how many seats they have, people in small groups will eat with other groups. There are no tables for two or less. He was there with his date and without a reservation, demanding not only to be seated right away but to have a whole table to themselves. Despite being two people, in a busy restaurant on a Friday night with at least 15 people with reservations still waiting to be seated. And he was so upset. The manager handled really well and said, “no, we can add you the waiting list or see if a spot is available at a table but we cannot give your party its own table with only two people.” Finally, tired of waiting and being told no, he turned to storm out. And little 11-year-old me was in line behind him with my family (we did have a reservation, it was my birthday dinner and we did have a reservation. I don’t know if he didn’t see me or didn’t think to look because he turned and stormed right into me before I could move. He almost knocked me over. And did I hear an apology? No. Did I hear a grumbled, “move”? No. He didn’t say anything. He just kept going, probably a little upset that I ruined his dramatic exit.

I’ve also met a couple singers in concert. I couldn’t tell you their names, I just remember lining up with my aunt because she wanted their autograph. I got a picture with them too, but I didn’t know who they were so didn’t really care.

Anyway, my point really is that, I have encountered celebrities before and been ambivalent, except with Kobe. Then, I was annoyed because he stepped on my foot and it had hurt.

So, I often would like to think this reflects the rationale knowledge that celebrities are people, not their characters and not magazine articles but actual people. When people spazz about how much they love a celebrity, I ask “but do you even know them?” When fangirls on YouTube get all “you don’t belong with X, you belong with Y (or me)” or “why did you guys break up? You were perfect together.” I can respond (though I don’t usually) that they don’t know what happens when the camera is off. They don’t even know if the person on camera is the same as they are off camera. So, they don’t know better and shouldn’t be telling people they don’t know how to live their lives.

And it followed, to me at least, that I could then meet a celebrity in real life without becoming a fumbling idiot. But, I probably couldn’t.

I remember when I went down to meet Meg Cabot (author of such works as The Princess Diaries and The Mediator series) and I was so nervous. I was so excited to meet her. After her talk, we were able to go up and meet her. I’m not going to lie, I was so excited. I really wanted to talk to her, to let her know that I love writing and want to be a writer too. The girl in line ahead of me (though she didn’t actually talk at all) was about my age and apparently was published at 14. Her mom was going on about how she’d been published, been on TV, how Meg Cabot was a huge inspiration, and on and on. And there I was, the same age loving to write but not having finished anything, let alone published anything at all. And I was still freaking out about whether I should say “hi” or “hey”. It felt kind of like a kick in the stomach. Here was this girl, who was basically like a child writing prodigy and one of the youngest Young Adult others, what was I compared to her?

Anyway, thinking about that event, I realized that I didn’t get all weird and fumbling or excited in the past because I didn’t care about those celebrities. I knew of them. But, that’s about it. I’m not enthralled by their fame. It isn’t even the fame that gets me hyped or not, it is what they are in and what they have done. This point was really sunk in when I found out Sandra Oh was hosting Saturday Night Live. I thought, “oh! I love her”. Christina Yang. I love Christina Yang from Grey’s Anatomy, that is the only work I really know Sandra Oh from and, while she does a great job of portraying her character, that is all I know about her.

So, in the end, my ability to meet celebrities without freaking out has not been because I am cool about it or possess self-control in the presence of fame, but rather that they weren’t celebrities that meant anything to me.

This theory might very well be put to the test on April 5^th, when I see Pink in concert. I don’t have backstage passes or anything, but who knows what will happen. More later.