I usually watch the youtube videos that vlogbrothers put out. They have consistently interesting and fun material, and I like their politics. I just saw the latest one though and it pinged one of my pet peeves: public marriage proposals. They showed some footage from one as though it was a great and romantic sort of gesture when I tend to see these things as extremely coercive.
Proposals in general are fine, of course. The problem is putting someone in the terrible position of having to answer such a question in public. Instead of getting an honest answer you ratchet up the social pressure on them to say yes to a terrifying degree, especially if they don't want to cause you pain and humiliation... which they probably don't, if you have any reason at all for the proposal.
When you try to find out if someone will make a serious legal committment to you, as well as a serious social committment, you ought to make damn sure that they do so freely and happily. Putting on the pressure in a public situation might end up fine if they are happy to say yes but it totally trashes their ability to ask questions, express doubt, or just say no.
Upon asking such a question you certainly don't want a negative answer but a negative answer then is drastically superior to a cancelled wedding or a divorce. I know people who ended up married with massive regrets because they felt they couldn't stop the train once it got going, and I have never seen it go well.
If you want to do a big public proposal you have an obligation to ask the person ahead of time. If they are fine with it then go ahead - surely some people like the idea. But unless you have confirmed that they want to be put to a serious decision with massive social pressure to answer a particular way in a public setting, bloody well ask in private.
It is hard enough to say no even with nobody watching. Don't make it worse, especially if you are a man asking a woman. They get enough pressure to say yes to men already.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Narcomancy
The story is based in a fantasy world vaguely modeled on ancient Egypt, but with magic. The magic of this land is called narcomancy because it is based on the power of dreams and relates to human minds and souls. I love the name narcymancy so much, I can't even express it.
The historical fiction aspect of the book reminds me a bit of Guy Gavriel Kay's style. Like Kay Jemisin blends recognizable historic groups and geography with new physics structures in ways that are really appealing. They both write compelling heroes and villains but I find both are best at building worlds for the reader to explore rather than building characters. The thing you really want to do in the books is walk the streets of the towns they describe and watch the unfolding history before you.
Just like in the Fifth season Jemisin makes room in the book for people with all kinds of styles of loving that aren't the standard monogamous, heterosexual pattern. You will not find the prodigal son hunting for a magic sword after which he marries the girl of his dreams in these books. People love other people in all kinds of ways, and Jemisin includes queer identities of many types among the characters. The great thing though is it blends in perfectly. She doesn't try to hammer home some kind of agenda in a hamfisted fashion; rather the characters just do what they do and it slides in seamlessly into the story being told.
One other thing that Jemisin does well is the examination of the price and burden of power. Her characters are often extremely powerful users of magic and they go through all kinds of trials and challenges figuring out what they should do with the power they have. Sometimes they make good decisions, sometimes not, and it is often difficult to figure out who is truly evil. Even the people you feel are the baddies usually have reasons for what they do that aren't just selfish or pointlessly destructive. There is a great deal of nuance in the paths that these characters choose and the fact that their power makes their choices influence a great many people makes it so much harder for them.
The wikipedia article about this book concludes that it got mostly good reviews but that it lacked maps and the geography was sometimes confusing. I completely agree with that, and I think it is one thing that the book could really use, and it would be easy to add in. Knowing where various kingdoms are and how they relate to other geographic features would help in understanding the political parts of the book, no doubt.
This is a good book, and certainly does a lot of things that appeal to me in particular. If you like historical fiction with cool worldbuilding and examination of the trials of power and control, I recommend it.
Monday, November 20, 2017
Getting wet
This past weekend I went to a party and got a drink poured on my head. This is a new thing for me, and I was kind of torn about how to react to it. On one hand I have seen plenty of drinks tossed on people in movies and sports shows and such so I kind of wondered what it would be like, but on the other hand I didn't really want a drink tossed on me.
It came at the end of the night when I was saying my goodbyes and on my way out the door. Just before exiting I ended up in a conversation with two people, and myself and the other guy in the conversation were talking about how our pants don't fit because we have been exercising and our legs and butts got bigger. The woman in the conversation was angry at us about this because, according to her, we don't know anything about clothes not fitting. She threw food at me to emphasize her point.
This was strange, but potato chips don't do much damage so I didn't fuss about it.
The conversation shifted to language and she and I found another point of disagreement. I don't think there is any proper form to language and it should be described and evaluated based on efficacy of communication, not adherence to a particular ruleset. For example, I would be perfectly happy with someone using u instead of you because it makes a hell of a lot more sense and everyone knows what it means. She found this to be anathema.
Then she threw a wine cork at me and it bounced off of my head.
Again, I felt like I didn't take much damage so I shouldn't worry overly about it but it did seem rude to do such a thing.
I decided that it was time to go. She elected to stand over the sole exit and lean over the railing with her drink and informed me that she was going to pour it over my head if I left. There was no other way to get out of the place and I thought it unlikely that she would go through with this threat - it does seem particularly unfriendly to tell a person they may not leave under threat of being soaked.
I walked down the stairs to go home and halfway down her entire drink came splattering down onto me. Of course it also got all over the stairs and made a huge mess. I stood there for a moment, kind of shocked, then noticed that the host had wandered over with some paper towels. I think he had brought them for a laugh because of the threat of the drink pouring and hadn't actually expected it to occur.
Nonetheless I cleaned myself up and he cleaned up the stairs and the person who poured the drink just watched. Then I left.
I wasn't at all sure what I should feel about this. The drink didn't do any damage to me so I can't find any reason to be upset. And yet I think it was a thing she should not have done. There would be people out there who would be really upset by this sort of thing, particularly since it was accompanied by the threat.
I am a big dude. A woman threatening me in this way does not actually put me out and I don't feel any intimidation or worry. Lots of other people might though, which makes me evaluating this action a tricky thing. Do I evaluate it in the context of what it did to me? In that case it was rude but not particularly a problem. Or should I look at it as a person doing this to another random person at a party? In that case it is more troubling.
I know that other people don't have the same experiences and privilege I do so I often spend time looking at events like this and wondering how I would feel about them if I were different, and thus how they should be treated. I rarely can figure out if people who do things to me that I shrug off but which would upset some others do it because they correctly read me as not being susceptible to that sort of thing, or if they just do shit to whoever they want. Would she have done this to a woman? Or just any person smaller than her? Or was it something she felt was fine because I am obviously not physically intimidated by her? I wish I knew.
It came at the end of the night when I was saying my goodbyes and on my way out the door. Just before exiting I ended up in a conversation with two people, and myself and the other guy in the conversation were talking about how our pants don't fit because we have been exercising and our legs and butts got bigger. The woman in the conversation was angry at us about this because, according to her, we don't know anything about clothes not fitting. She threw food at me to emphasize her point.
This was strange, but potato chips don't do much damage so I didn't fuss about it.
The conversation shifted to language and she and I found another point of disagreement. I don't think there is any proper form to language and it should be described and evaluated based on efficacy of communication, not adherence to a particular ruleset. For example, I would be perfectly happy with someone using u instead of you because it makes a hell of a lot more sense and everyone knows what it means. She found this to be anathema.
Then she threw a wine cork at me and it bounced off of my head.
Again, I felt like I didn't take much damage so I shouldn't worry overly about it but it did seem rude to do such a thing.
I decided that it was time to go. She elected to stand over the sole exit and lean over the railing with her drink and informed me that she was going to pour it over my head if I left. There was no other way to get out of the place and I thought it unlikely that she would go through with this threat - it does seem particularly unfriendly to tell a person they may not leave under threat of being soaked.
I walked down the stairs to go home and halfway down her entire drink came splattering down onto me. Of course it also got all over the stairs and made a huge mess. I stood there for a moment, kind of shocked, then noticed that the host had wandered over with some paper towels. I think he had brought them for a laugh because of the threat of the drink pouring and hadn't actually expected it to occur.
Nonetheless I cleaned myself up and he cleaned up the stairs and the person who poured the drink just watched. Then I left.
I wasn't at all sure what I should feel about this. The drink didn't do any damage to me so I can't find any reason to be upset. And yet I think it was a thing she should not have done. There would be people out there who would be really upset by this sort of thing, particularly since it was accompanied by the threat.
I am a big dude. A woman threatening me in this way does not actually put me out and I don't feel any intimidation or worry. Lots of other people might though, which makes me evaluating this action a tricky thing. Do I evaluate it in the context of what it did to me? In that case it was rude but not particularly a problem. Or should I look at it as a person doing this to another random person at a party? In that case it is more troubling.
I know that other people don't have the same experiences and privilege I do so I often spend time looking at events like this and wondering how I would feel about them if I were different, and thus how they should be treated. I rarely can figure out if people who do things to me that I shrug off but which would upset some others do it because they correctly read me as not being susceptible to that sort of thing, or if they just do shit to whoever they want. Would she have done this to a woman? Or just any person smaller than her? Or was it something she felt was fine because I am obviously not physically intimidated by her? I wish I knew.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
The end of a career
With the sexual misconduct stories surrounding people like Louis CK, Kevin Spacey, and Harvey Weinstein in high gear I am seeing all kinds of takes on what to do about it. Most people seem in agreement that this is horrible but some of them think we should destroy these men's ability to work in their chosen field forevermore and some think that is too much and that they should be let off with a scolding.
I don't know if it comes from simply admiring the work of these moguls of entertainment or if it is more about misogyny (at least in the cases of Weinstein and Lous CK) but there is something that causes people to speak out about how we ought not to ruin the careers of people revealed to be serial abusers. There are so many people out there saying that oh yes, the things that Weinstein and Louis CK and Kevin Spacey did were bad, but should we really ruin a person's career over them sexually abusing people?
Yes. Burn it to the fucking ground.
Make no mistake. This isn't me saying "It is acceptable to ruin their career to send a message." It isn't me saying "I can live with their careers being ruined in order to protect people." It is much more than that. It is me saying "We MUST destroy their careers completely and utterly."
Imagine a person who over the course of decades repeatedly hit people with their car. Over and over and over they ran people over inflicting horrible pain and suffering. We would naturally insist that this criminal lose their licence forever because they clearly cannot be trusted in a car.
The same applies here. All three of these men used their career success as a weapon to hurt others. They used their influence and fame and connections to assault people on a regular basis. They leveraged their fortunes and friends to cover up their misconduct. Their careers were not separable from the evil they inflicted; they were the vehicle by which these men caused harm.
All three of these men, and many others, used their careers as weapons to injure people. They clearly cannot be trusted with power, influence, or recognition. We know that when they are put in positions of authority and respect they immediately and repeatedly leverage those things to harm others.
So yes, we should ruin the careers of people who are guilty of repeated and continuous sexual misconduct. Not by accident, and not because we can't find any other way, but because this is exactly what these people deserve and because they have proved themselves unworthy of respect, influence, and adoration.
None of these men are going to starve. They have lots of money as it is, and they will be able to find more. They absolutely deserve ignominy, and they deserve to find out what it is like to have people refuse to let them be part of show business, just the way they threatened to do to others who might have outed them for their reprehensible behaviour.
That strikes me as the thing that is as close to justice as we are likely to get, barring prosecution, and while if they are prosecuted that would be a fine thing as far as I am concerned I am not holding my breath.
You don't have to hate The Usual Suspects or throw out your DVDs of Louis CK comedy specials. But you should do your damndest to make sure they can't get work making anything more. They are plenty of other people in the world who will step up to fill those roles, and perhaps these consequences will prevent others from trying the same thing. We can only hope it is so.
I don't know if it comes from simply admiring the work of these moguls of entertainment or if it is more about misogyny (at least in the cases of Weinstein and Lous CK) but there is something that causes people to speak out about how we ought not to ruin the careers of people revealed to be serial abusers. There are so many people out there saying that oh yes, the things that Weinstein and Louis CK and Kevin Spacey did were bad, but should we really ruin a person's career over them sexually abusing people?
Yes. Burn it to the fucking ground.
Make no mistake. This isn't me saying "It is acceptable to ruin their career to send a message." It isn't me saying "I can live with their careers being ruined in order to protect people." It is much more than that. It is me saying "We MUST destroy their careers completely and utterly."
Imagine a person who over the course of decades repeatedly hit people with their car. Over and over and over they ran people over inflicting horrible pain and suffering. We would naturally insist that this criminal lose their licence forever because they clearly cannot be trusted in a car.
The same applies here. All three of these men used their career success as a weapon to hurt others. They used their influence and fame and connections to assault people on a regular basis. They leveraged their fortunes and friends to cover up their misconduct. Their careers were not separable from the evil they inflicted; they were the vehicle by which these men caused harm.
All three of these men, and many others, used their careers as weapons to injure people. They clearly cannot be trusted with power, influence, or recognition. We know that when they are put in positions of authority and respect they immediately and repeatedly leverage those things to harm others.
So yes, we should ruin the careers of people who are guilty of repeated and continuous sexual misconduct. Not by accident, and not because we can't find any other way, but because this is exactly what these people deserve and because they have proved themselves unworthy of respect, influence, and adoration.
None of these men are going to starve. They have lots of money as it is, and they will be able to find more. They absolutely deserve ignominy, and they deserve to find out what it is like to have people refuse to let them be part of show business, just the way they threatened to do to others who might have outed them for their reprehensible behaviour.
That strikes me as the thing that is as close to justice as we are likely to get, barring prosecution, and while if they are prosecuted that would be a fine thing as far as I am concerned I am not holding my breath.
You don't have to hate The Usual Suspects or throw out your DVDs of Louis CK comedy specials. But you should do your damndest to make sure they can't get work making anything more. They are plenty of other people in the world who will step up to fill those roles, and perhaps these consequences will prevent others from trying the same thing. We can only hope it is so.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Entertainment
1 week ago I was in a club in Boston watching a Dresden Dolls concert. This was mostly because I was following Wendy and The Flautist around; they are huge fans of the Dresden Dolls and since they were going to Boston to watch the concert I went too. There were other things to see and do in Boston of course, but this was the big thing that set our schedule.
For most of the people in the club the concert seemed to go well. The band was talented and put on a good show but it managed to miss with me in a lot of ways, some of which I can articulate, some of which I find myself at a loss to describe.
I certainly loved the drummer's costume. I want a tuxedo covered in red sequins now, though I don't suppose that it would look that good on me since I am not drumming in a club with lights flashing all over me.
The music wasn't quite my thing. I am not really sure why though. There are some songs that I love because I love the lyrics, and some songs that I love even though there aren't any lyrics, but I found that the Dresden Dolls managed to thread between those two points and have lyrics that I couldn't follow. I bet all the people in the audience who knew the songs and could anticipate the words followed along just fine, but I was mostly lost.
After the concert people asked me what I thought of it. I was stuck because I don't want to be the downer that tells everyone who is clearly flying high with excitement that I didn't like the show, but I also don't want to pretend or lie either.
I told them that I had felt intense loneliness and alienation at the show. The music wasn't really my thing, (though the performance was really well executed), but the thing that made me feel lonely and alienated was mostly the speeches the singer Amanda Palmer made. They were impassioned speeches directed at her people, the people who are her ardent fans. I am sure they resonated with those people but they made me feel like I was in the wrong place.
When someone gives a speech you can take the words they say and expect wildly different responses based on the listeners state of mind. I knew the people that loved her already would love the speeches, but when I looked at the literal words they made it clear that Amanda Palmer does not think much of people like me. I don't know that my interpretation of her words accurately reflects her values, but it certainly worked to make me feel unwelcome. It is easy to give a speech knowing that the people who will hear it will interpret your words in a favourable light, always keeping in mind that they know and trust you. When someone outside your circle hears that speech though it can be a disaster as they don't have that trust and have their own biases in place and your speech can be heard an entirely different way.
It is odd to me that I am still thinking about this. After all, I went to a concert, the music was okay but not really my thing, and one of the people in the band said some stuff I didn't like. Hardly seems like the sort of thing that should matter, really.
And yet it has stuck with me.
For most of the people in the club the concert seemed to go well. The band was talented and put on a good show but it managed to miss with me in a lot of ways, some of which I can articulate, some of which I find myself at a loss to describe.
I certainly loved the drummer's costume. I want a tuxedo covered in red sequins now, though I don't suppose that it would look that good on me since I am not drumming in a club with lights flashing all over me.
The music wasn't quite my thing. I am not really sure why though. There are some songs that I love because I love the lyrics, and some songs that I love even though there aren't any lyrics, but I found that the Dresden Dolls managed to thread between those two points and have lyrics that I couldn't follow. I bet all the people in the audience who knew the songs and could anticipate the words followed along just fine, but I was mostly lost.
After the concert people asked me what I thought of it. I was stuck because I don't want to be the downer that tells everyone who is clearly flying high with excitement that I didn't like the show, but I also don't want to pretend or lie either.
I told them that I had felt intense loneliness and alienation at the show. The music wasn't really my thing, (though the performance was really well executed), but the thing that made me feel lonely and alienated was mostly the speeches the singer Amanda Palmer made. They were impassioned speeches directed at her people, the people who are her ardent fans. I am sure they resonated with those people but they made me feel like I was in the wrong place.
When someone gives a speech you can take the words they say and expect wildly different responses based on the listeners state of mind. I knew the people that loved her already would love the speeches, but when I looked at the literal words they made it clear that Amanda Palmer does not think much of people like me. I don't know that my interpretation of her words accurately reflects her values, but it certainly worked to make me feel unwelcome. It is easy to give a speech knowing that the people who will hear it will interpret your words in a favourable light, always keeping in mind that they know and trust you. When someone outside your circle hears that speech though it can be a disaster as they don't have that trust and have their own biases in place and your speech can be heard an entirely different way.
It is odd to me that I am still thinking about this. After all, I went to a concert, the music was okay but not really my thing, and one of the people in the band said some stuff I didn't like. Hardly seems like the sort of thing that should matter, really.
And yet it has stuck with me.
Take it all off
A little while ago I watched a youtube video by a guy called Omar Isuf. He does bodybuilding / weightlifting videos and he wanted to talk about a thing he had noticed - his views and revenue from videos are strongly influenced by what he wore in the video.
When he wears a baggy tshirt his views are way down, but when he wears a tiny tank top his views go way up. Extrapolating a little we can safely guess that he could increase his views even more by losing the shirt entirely and stripping down as much as youtube guidelines will let him get away with.
Omar is grumpy about this. He wants his show to be successful because of the information he provides and his talent for entertainment, not just how good he looks while stripped down. I get that.
But let's be realistic for a minute. Omar isn't just choosing a shirt but otherwise appearing on the show completely naturally. He shaves his chest, arms, back, and probably other parts of him to increase his aesthetic appeal. He does his absolute best to look as cut as possible to try to maximize views. There are a lot more things you could do to look better for a show like this, and although I don't know what Omar does I am sure lots of fitness folks making videos dehydrate themselves, chug laxatives to shrink their stomachs, starve themselves before shows, and use any number of other tactics to look as close to the ideal as possible. Omar didn't talk about any of those things, largely because he wouldn't want to admit that level of manipulation, but he did talk about his shirt which he clearly he can't deny choosing.
Omar is right though that we shouldn't be choosing our fitness trainers based on their clothes or looks. Looking hot mostly says you are young, have fortunate genetics, and that you have the money to pour into food and training to get that way. None of that tells you anything about the quality of the information the viewer is getting. Looking hot does say something about experience and dedication, but those are pretty weakly correlated to knowing what you are talking about too.
But we choose everything based on the attractiveness of the person we are dealing with. Want to sell a lot of mattresses? Look hot. Want to get a promotion for an accounting position? Look hot. Want to get elected to Canada's top office? Look hot.
This focus on the appearance of the person giving fitness advice is silly but it isn't any more silly that the focus on appearance in any other part of life.
I am super sympathetic to the point of view that which shirt I wear, or my choice to refuse to wear one at all, should not influence my job prospects. But let's face it: If I go to an interview in a tank top or shirtless I will be laughed at at best, or have an interview with the cops at worst. The fitness industry is just like everywhere else - appearance matters more than pretty much anything else.
When he wears a baggy tshirt his views are way down, but when he wears a tiny tank top his views go way up. Extrapolating a little we can safely guess that he could increase his views even more by losing the shirt entirely and stripping down as much as youtube guidelines will let him get away with.
Omar is grumpy about this. He wants his show to be successful because of the information he provides and his talent for entertainment, not just how good he looks while stripped down. I get that.
But let's be realistic for a minute. Omar isn't just choosing a shirt but otherwise appearing on the show completely naturally. He shaves his chest, arms, back, and probably other parts of him to increase his aesthetic appeal. He does his absolute best to look as cut as possible to try to maximize views. There are a lot more things you could do to look better for a show like this, and although I don't know what Omar does I am sure lots of fitness folks making videos dehydrate themselves, chug laxatives to shrink their stomachs, starve themselves before shows, and use any number of other tactics to look as close to the ideal as possible. Omar didn't talk about any of those things, largely because he wouldn't want to admit that level of manipulation, but he did talk about his shirt which he clearly he can't deny choosing.
Omar is right though that we shouldn't be choosing our fitness trainers based on their clothes or looks. Looking hot mostly says you are young, have fortunate genetics, and that you have the money to pour into food and training to get that way. None of that tells you anything about the quality of the information the viewer is getting. Looking hot does say something about experience and dedication, but those are pretty weakly correlated to knowing what you are talking about too.
But we choose everything based on the attractiveness of the person we are dealing with. Want to sell a lot of mattresses? Look hot. Want to get a promotion for an accounting position? Look hot. Want to get elected to Canada's top office? Look hot.
This focus on the appearance of the person giving fitness advice is silly but it isn't any more silly that the focus on appearance in any other part of life.
I am super sympathetic to the point of view that which shirt I wear, or my choice to refuse to wear one at all, should not influence my job prospects. But let's face it: If I go to an interview in a tank top or shirtless I will be laughed at at best, or have an interview with the cops at worst. The fitness industry is just like everywhere else - appearance matters more than pretty much anything else.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Leftovers for me
Tonight was the first of Pinkie Pie's birthday celebrations. Last year through a series of strange events she managed to have four birthday celebrations, and that was TOO MUCH BIRTHDAY. Mostly for me, I think Pinkie Pie was fine with it all. This year we have kept it down to two birthdays which is much more manageable. We and the family went out for dinner and as usual I ended up vacuuming up extra food.
Wendy gave me a quarter of her tuna salad and Pinkie Pie gave me the dregs of her tomato meat sauce. I had an entree and an extra side soup and was still hungry - this is the power of squats. At the end of the meal after I had a whole stack of plates in front of me there was still a plate with half a fish dinner on it.
I started at the plate.
I wanted that fish. Veggies too, but mostly the fish.
The person who ordered the fish dinner was going to leave and it wasn't clear what was being done with the fish.
I would be perfectly happy if they packed up the fish and took it home. I would also be happy with me eating the fish. What would make me sad is the fish being dumped in the garbage.
But it is really awkward asking about this. I don't want to take people's food away from them, especially if they were looking forward to taking their leftovers home. But if I ask them if they are packing it up there is a really awkward moment where they feel pressured to give me the food and I hate applying that kind of pressure.
Other people really don't seem to care about tossing out food. Certainly not the way I do. Oftentimes it seems like it is an afterthought, like it hardly matters if the food gets eaten or not. It matters to me! Partly because I want to eat the food, partly because I can't stand the thought of perfectly good food being thrown out for no reason.
I often seem to end up in the position of springing into action when the server is whisking the food away saying "wait, wait! I want that!" and grabbing food off of the plate that is currently being transported away from the table.
People look at me so strangely when this happens. Normally everyone seems to think I am being gross because who wants food that someone else has touched?
Me! I want it. Pick me, pick me!
Hell, I have a hard time watching people I don't know at other tables send food back. I want to flag down the server and get them to deliver a stranger's food to my table so I can fill up.
I ended up asking if the fish was going to be packed up or thrown out. The person who ordered the fish didn't seem to figure out what I was asking at first, but eventually it came out that they were going to toss it so I ate all the fish and veggies and was well pleased.
I get why other people don't want to share food and would rather throw it out than have someone else eat it. We have strong taboos about doing things that might share germs and there is some value in that. I think though that most people go far beyond that and end up associating someone else's stuff with grossness in a way that has nothing to do with health and safety. Moreover I think that this feeling that people have causes a terrible amount of waste, both in food and otherwise. People want new, they don't want something someone else has had, and this combined with our worries about contamination causes us to waste so much food.
As we were about to leave the table I noticed that someone had left one third of a beer undrunk. I couldn't stop myself, and I grabbed the beer and downed it. It wasn't bad. For beer.
You can't take me anywhere.
Wendy gave me a quarter of her tuna salad and Pinkie Pie gave me the dregs of her tomato meat sauce. I had an entree and an extra side soup and was still hungry - this is the power of squats. At the end of the meal after I had a whole stack of plates in front of me there was still a plate with half a fish dinner on it.
I started at the plate.
I wanted that fish. Veggies too, but mostly the fish.
The person who ordered the fish dinner was going to leave and it wasn't clear what was being done with the fish.
I would be perfectly happy if they packed up the fish and took it home. I would also be happy with me eating the fish. What would make me sad is the fish being dumped in the garbage.
But it is really awkward asking about this. I don't want to take people's food away from them, especially if they were looking forward to taking their leftovers home. But if I ask them if they are packing it up there is a really awkward moment where they feel pressured to give me the food and I hate applying that kind of pressure.
Other people really don't seem to care about tossing out food. Certainly not the way I do. Oftentimes it seems like it is an afterthought, like it hardly matters if the food gets eaten or not. It matters to me! Partly because I want to eat the food, partly because I can't stand the thought of perfectly good food being thrown out for no reason.
I often seem to end up in the position of springing into action when the server is whisking the food away saying "wait, wait! I want that!" and grabbing food off of the plate that is currently being transported away from the table.
People look at me so strangely when this happens. Normally everyone seems to think I am being gross because who wants food that someone else has touched?
Me! I want it. Pick me, pick me!
Hell, I have a hard time watching people I don't know at other tables send food back. I want to flag down the server and get them to deliver a stranger's food to my table so I can fill up.
I ended up asking if the fish was going to be packed up or thrown out. The person who ordered the fish didn't seem to figure out what I was asking at first, but eventually it came out that they were going to toss it so I ate all the fish and veggies and was well pleased.
I get why other people don't want to share food and would rather throw it out than have someone else eat it. We have strong taboos about doing things that might share germs and there is some value in that. I think though that most people go far beyond that and end up associating someone else's stuff with grossness in a way that has nothing to do with health and safety. Moreover I think that this feeling that people have causes a terrible amount of waste, both in food and otherwise. People want new, they don't want something someone else has had, and this combined with our worries about contamination causes us to waste so much food.
As we were about to leave the table I noticed that someone had left one third of a beer undrunk. I couldn't stop myself, and I grabbed the beer and downed it. It wasn't bad. For beer.
You can't take me anywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)