Tag: feminism

Categories
abortion

The Horror of Gosnell

I have seen Twitter exploding over this for the last two days, and to be honest I had no idea what the hell it was about, other than it had something to do with abortion. In case you’re in the same boat as me, here are some links to get you started. Because while this is very, very disturbing stuff involving extreme medical malfeasance, abortion, and infanticide, if you can handle reading about it you should.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran a “clinic” (I use the scare quotes on purpose) where mostly low-income women went for late-term abortions. PZ Myers summarizes the retch-inducing details here. The full grand jury report here, not for the faint of stomach.

I’ve already seen it used several times as an argument for regulating abortion even more or making it illegal. On the contrary, I’d say it makes even more of a case for keeping abortion legal, and points to the hideous inequalities in healthcare faced by poor women.

Gosnell is (allegedly) a criminal. He’s on trial because what he (allegedly) did broke the law. Part of why he remained free for so long was because his victims were afraid to report due to their own part in these illegal late-term abortions. (So yeah, making more abortion illegal will surely put a stop to that problem.) But moreso, it was a hideous failure of the government that he was not stopped sooner. Hell, the only reason he was caught was because he was illegally prescribing drugs, not because he was destroying the health and lives of the women who resorted to his “care.”

Gosnell is the one on trial here, but the terrible inequalities that put these women in such an untenable position and the utter negligence of the government were what made his so-called “clinic” possible.

Categories
feminism

End of the ban on women in combat

Surprise! Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat. I knew about the lawsuit back in November and got the sense that things were kind of moving on this front, but I didn’t expect this one. Happy inauguration present, I guess?

Having never served in the military, I can only really speak to how it’s looked from the outside. Like it’s seemed really ridiculous to continue to keep women out of combat assignments when female soldiers have gotten wounded fairly often in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering the way combat in those wars hasn’t stayed nice and neat on a battlefield. And I’ve heard over and over that combat assignments are the better path to promotion (is this true?) which would make keeping women out of those assignments beyond shitty.
That, and I think it’s an intense pile of bullshit to keep women out of a job so long as we’re physically capable of doing it. And what I mean by that is that I totally understand why in, say, firefighting you want someone to be able to drag at least a 150 lb person to safety when you might be depending on them to save your ass one of these days. And if a woman can do said dragging? There’s no excuse to keep her out. 
Thoughts from actual military type people? I’d like to hear.
If you’d like to laugh yourself sick or potentially cause brain trauma from too much headdesking, read some of the comments on the CNN article. Apparently this is a bad decision because women have periods (if this is even potentially a problem, there is birth control that actually prevents this by the way), it’s a scientific fact that men use logic and women use emotion (my emotions say LOL), and women are meant only to create and nurture life and we are disrupting the order of the universe (if that’s the order of the universe it could use some more disruption thanks). 
I cannot even make this shit up. 
Categories
sfwa

Also, Jim C. Hines is awesome in case you didn’t know

The BBC did a cool article about Jim C. Hines and his ongoing series where he tries to pose like ladies on fantasy/scifi covers. Kind of like live action Hawkeye Initiative, except instead of Hawkeye we have a real life SF author, which is infinitely cooler in my opinion.

This coming out in the same week as the sigh-worthy SFWA Bulletin cover is just a lovely juxtaposition, though, isn’t it.

Categories
feminism

If women aren’t women any more, are we houseplants?

I normally don’t curse my eyes with shit from Fox News, but I couldn’t quite resist this piece about the “war on men” because there is something I find particularly annoying about assholes that think they get to decide if you are a woman or a man. For example:

And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.

So wait, what are women then, if we aren’t women? Houseplants? Evil robots? Corporate flying monkeys? A form of parasitic fungus? Cheap plastic toys? That little bit of popcorn that gets stuck in your teeth that you just know is going to give you an instant cavity?

Because goodness knows, we apparently aren’t people. And neither are men, I guess. We’re caricatures controlled by our biological natures, which I’d guess is that “poison from the gonads” stuff General Custer mentioned in Little Big Man.

As far as I can tell from this essay, women only get to be women if they want to get married and then let men do their manly man duty of manliness, which is to be the primary breadwinner and “protect their families.” I am also going to take a wild guess and say that in order for a woman to be a woman, she must want to have kids too.

The entire basis of this argument seems to be that the author has talked to people. Woo, anecdotes! Well, I have a bunch of anecdotes, too. There are people who want to get married and people who don’t. There are people who want to have kids and people who don’t. There are men that want to be the breadwinner and others who would like to be stay-at-home dads and the same with women, and some that would even like to split things 50/50. This may come as a shock, but people are a diverse bunch. And incidentally, there are men that want to marry men (or don’t) and women who want to marry women (or don’t) and it’d be great if they had that choice too.

Oh yeah and:

All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

You know what would be awesome? If people were just allowed to be themselves. I’ve never bought the idea of their being an essential femininity that comes with possessing a uterus, just like I don’t think there is something essentially masculine that people with penises get to have. (Okay, except maybe the part where you get to pee standing up because that’s kind of awesome.) I don’t feel like I’ve missed something important in my life because I don’t like makeup and dresses and would rather die than be a housewife; but I also think the experiences of my friends who do like and want those things are just as valid because it makes them happy.

Ms. Venker, I’d hazard a guess that a great many people out there aren’t angry because evil feminism has caused us to fight against our “natures.” We’re tired and cranky because we constantly have to fight with assholes like you who think there’s only one way to conduct a life.

Also: Eric has some entertaining things to say about this from his naturally manly position of manliness as he tries to parse out just what he’s so angry about.

Categories
feminism worldcon

[Worldcon] Feminism in Fantasy

Saturday (September 1) at 1800: Feminism in Fantasy
Panelists listed in program: Sandy Lindow, Joan D. Vinge, Valerie Estelle Frankel, Sarah Hans, Julia Rios [Note: Sandy Lindow did now show.]

Disclaimer: These are my notes from the panel and my own, later thoughts. I often was unable to attend the entire panel, and also chronically missed panelist introductions. When possible I try to note who said something, but often was unable to. Also, unless something is in double quotes it should be considered a summary and not a direct quotation.

Moderator for the panel did not show up so Julia Rios from Strange Horizons has stepped in.

Valerie Estelle Frankel: the heroine’s journey. Not the same as feminism. The girl travels to fight against the evil queen/symbol of infertility. The young girl heroine doesn’t get a sword; she gets an array of items to fight with most of which are not actually weapons. Talismans of information and perception, often magic apparel. Still descends into death and comes back stronger than before, metaphor for growing up. Normally in heroine’s journey she’s off to rescue a family member rather than great evil. Boys often set out to fight the great evil, for the girls it’s incidental to rescuing the family member. May come from women traditionally being the protector of the family while the men are the warriors. Boys are the warriors and girls are the saviors – see Prince Caspian. They are going on different quests and fight differently. Lucy gets to be more of a hero than Peter… depending upon the definition of hero.
Examples: The Golden Compass, Cupid and Psyche, Seven Swans

Most writers in horror are not women. And generally when male writers have female characters, they are victims. Very traditional American horror trope. There are editors in horror that specifically want female writers writing female characters. So if you’re up against a male writer with a similar story, you have a better chance of getting chosen just because you might be the only woman who has even submitted to that project.

Sarah Hans prefers reading female writers in general because there is more emotion and better rendered relationships between characters during the journey. Little girls will read stories about little boys, but supposedly little boys won’t read stories about little girls. However, with teenaged boys and adult men, it’s shifting so that men are starting to read stories by female writers and with female characters. It’s not emasculating to read things with emotions!

Socialization of culture that boys aren’t supposed to like girl things.

VEF: Women in trousers research. Lots of Victorian women used to dress up in suits and take photographs and do posed scenes. “If you don’t want to be the wimpy girl sidekick you have to identify with the male hero.” What happens when we try to identify with the non-standard. Feels that Katniss got really white-washed in the movie.

SH: part of the reason little boys don’t like reading books about little girls is because books about little girls suck really bad. Which only perpetuates the vicious cycle. If there’s an adventure character that’s female in a story book, they’re almost always either in a fantasy world OR an anthropomorphized animal. In a fantasy world girls get to have agency, but they can’t seem to do it in the real world; not many stories about little girls just being little girls in the real world.

Do female heroes have less value because they use different methods than males?

Joan D Vinge: Depends on the definition. The higher ranked a warrior is in society, the lower the status of the women. In really strong warrior societies, women are almost considered animals that are just for procreation so homosexuality is societally promoted. And then institutionalized pedophilia often. Women’s roles just completely disappear.

VEF: The Ruins of Isis. (Marion Zimmer Bradley)

Julia Rios: Pulp scifi that had women characters normally did the planet of the women hellishly dominating men.

Question as applied to horror-
SH: Heroine is normally super smart or charming or has magical power of awesome sexuality. Can do the same thing with a male character, but for a female character it almost seems like the weakness becomes your strength to write.

Audience Q&A

Audience: Is it true that there are truly enough strong female characters, or are there problems that we see and what are those problems? What would we like to see? (Because some people would say this kind of panel is no longer necessary.)

VEF: Twilight. [Crowd groans.] Katniss is great and kicks butt, but she doesn’t really want to be a girl. The warrior woman is a strong female character, but is cutting herself off from and often despising her femininity. Sends message that the only path to power is to be a tomboy. (Also saw this as the message in the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland.) Hermione is awesome but is technically a sidekick and spends her entire time trying to help Harry succeed in his goal. Problematic as well, because it says no matter how awesome you are you’ll spend your life picking up after Harry Potter.

SH: Would like to see more incidental LGBTQ people. (I’d like to see a dude who enjoys wearing a dresses and it’s not a big deal.) Would like to see more about female friendship and the extremely close bond with a female friend that can eclipse your relationship with a man that’s very passionate even if there is no sex to it. Would like to see a girl and her best friend having adventures together, rather than a woman and her male sidekick. Holmes and Watson relationship between two women.

JR: More female friendships where they aren’t jealous each other about men! Because women don’t really do that! How many of us in our real lives have had this happen with our best female friends?

JDV: [I’m having a really hard time following what Joan is saying. :-/]

SH: Anne McCaffrey’s Pern books were huge for her with the female dragon riders. Jacqueline Carey’s series now. None are really coming of age stories. Using sexuality to overcome obstacles. Shout-out to Laurel K Hamilton. Both series start out with badass and intelligent female heroines but then descend further and further into smut with huge harems of men. But at least most women have a lot of agency and get to make choices.

JDV: Andre Norton – (what is this book title? I missed it.) Ordeal in Otherwhere

What about Buffy?

VEF: Wrote a book about it. It rocks. Many feminist characters other than just Buffy.

JDV: Liked it. Way better than Angel series which had too many male characters.

SH: Loves it, recommends comics. Strong female friendship between Buffy and Willow. Incredible bond between the two.

Audience: With conservative revival in America and elsewhere, is that having an effect? Backlash in fantasy?

JR: YA dystopias abounding with fertility issues where women are being forced to breed. Probably related.

JDV: What is being written always reflects today.

Audience: How does sex factor into feminism in fantasy?

SH: There is a lot you can learn about a character in a sexual encounter – how generous/selfish or skilled/inexperienced.

VEF: Kushiel girls come out of sex winning. GRRM girls have sex and try to influence and lose. Sex as power.

JR: Women having choices and giving enthusiastic consent. Very tired of women getting raped as a plot device.

Audience: Says Buffy is emasculating and anti-man.

JR: Does Buffy emasculate men to begin with?

VEF: Maybe a little, but no story is perfect.

JDV: Men aren’t the main characters so maybe that’s why it seems emasculating. I liked all the guys.

SH: The whole series is supposed to be turning tropes on its head. Buffy doesn’t need a male sidekick she has the most powerful female witch in the world.

Audience guy: But Xander is buffoonish!

JR: He’s one guy. Not all the male characters are like that.

SH: Xander is the heart of the group. He’s supposed to be a clown. And he’s supposed to be someone that Buffy doesn’t want to date.

Audience: What about Firefly. Feels like it’s basically perfect.

SH: Mal is clearly the main character. It’s not 50/50. Buffy has that same problem the other way. You do have to pick a main character at some point.

#

Bless Julia Rios for making the attempt at moderating. It was kind of a rough panel, viewed from the audience. But also a very interesting one.

And I admit it, when the guy in the audience asked his question about Buffy the Vampire Slayer being emasculating, all I could hear in my head was, “But what about the men?” For goodness sake, we get one series that’s the most awesomesauce ever for the women compared to nearly every other one where the men get to be the hero.

I think the remark I really liked the most was the request for more stories about strong female friendships where the women don’t fight over men. Goodness this, a thousand times yes. I can think of precisely one occasion in my life (in high school) when I had a thing for the same guy one of my friends did. The other girl and I worked it out just fine and remained good friends – because shockingly enough, genuine friendship is more important than boys. (Sorry boys, I know you may not want to hear this.)

I have no idea why that trope gets written so often. Is it because men are supposed to be that important? Romance and marriage is supposed to be a woman’s be-all and end-all? Ugh. I’m not going to say it never happens, but the way it gets presented in books and media you’d think it was rampant.

One thing that did bother me was the remark about the warrior woman, cutting herself off from essential femininity and taking the tomboy path to power. I don’t think that should be presented as the only path to power (I want to see my niece be the hero whether or not she wants to wear pink frilly dresses while doing it) but I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Admittedly, I’m a bit biased as a life-long tomboy that’s never really been impressed by the idea that there’s something I’m missing out on as a woman because I’m simply not interested in “femininity,” essential or otherwise.

Then again, I don’t necessarily buy into the idea of the existence of “essential femininity” or “essential masculinity” to begin with; I don’t think men and women are actually as different at the level of blood and bone as we like to pretend. We’re all part of that glorious rainbow of humanity that bridges the horizon.

But hey, that’s just me. I suppose you could accuse the warrior woman of trying too hard to be like a man, but I’d ask in return – what if she’s just trying really hard to be herself?

Categories
feminism rants things that are hard to write

Stop calling me a "real woman"

Because you know what that implies? Are there really femmebots out there, complete with boob guns that make up the category of “not real” women? Are there girls made out of plastic? Is there a test you have to take, or are there government regulations sort of like they have for beef that mean we get tagged as real women, right next to the stamp stating we’re organic, because hey we’re composed of carbon-containing molecules?

It’s a bullshit term. It always struck me wrong when I went to Lane Bryant and was rewarded with “real woman dollars” for shopping. But the wrongness burst into ugly life when I re-watched the episode of Project Runway where one of the designers is a giant toolbag to a plus-size lady. The utter patronizing tone in which its delivered and that it’s obvious he’s using it in place of “fat” because he’s trying to weasel out of being eviscerated for being an asshole is even more insulting.

You’re not fooling anyone. We shouldn’t need some kind of smirking consolation prize for wearing clothing that’s bigger than a 16. We already know we’re real. We exist. It’s a sad disguise for the fact that often plus-size clothing feels like cultural punishment by setting set us in an adversarial position to women who wear “normal” sizes. Perhaps if we’re too busy trying to look down our noses at each other, we’ll miss the evil truth that we’re being compelled to attack people who should be our allies in this struggle, divided falsely along superficial lines.

Or maybe I’m reading too much into it. Maybe it’s just a pathetic attempt to make us feel better about ourselves. Hey, you’re large and are apparently considered unworthy to wear anything other than black smocks (it’s slimming, you know) but you’re a real woman. As if realness is determined by mass rather than an authenticity of spirit. 

Being a woman isn’t a contest that some of us have to lose. There is a full spectrum of women to which we all belong, an infinite continuum of what it means to “look like a woman,” and no part of that spectrum should be defined as inherently superior. Doing that (and then gleefully jumping over a cliff with the invention of photoshop) is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I’m tired of the implication that my struggle to accept myself has to come at the detriment of other women.

Real women are fat. Real women are thin. Real women come in all colors and shapes and identities, and sometimes we have curves, and sometimes we don’t but damnit we’re all real women.

And we’re all really beautiful.

Categories
department of corrections feminism

Princess? Sigh.

ETA: I have since confirmed that this gifset is totally fake and I should feel ashamed of myself. I’m going to go sit in the corner. I have preserved the text of this post in all its unedited glory so (a) you can see the dumb thing I said by grace of not confirming sources [not yay] and (b) I still very much stand by what I said about the whole “princess” thing, because it doesn’t actually matter what guy is saying it, and it is a thing you hear men say all the fucking time. It’s still infantilizing bullshit.

 

I adore you, Tom Hiddleston. I do. And I totally grok what you are trying to say, here. But that word. Princess.

Sigh.

This is admittedly a bit of Rachael brain damage, but since this is a Rachael blog, I get to complain. I hate the Princess shit with burning passion. I hate it when people (normally guys) say women should be treated like princesses, unless the word princess is immediately preceded by the word warrior.

There’s a lot of baggage to Princess. Historically, what were they? Women of royalty who (normally) could not inherit or rule. They were there to basically belong to their father until they could be sold in the cause of a political alliance to another man. At which point the purpose switched over to providing (hopefully) male babies.

And then there’s Disney. Disney hasn’t exactly made the Princess into an empowering concept either. Princesses get rescued by the man and live happily ever after as someone’s meek wife. And if you look at the recent Disney “princesses” that have had more guts, most of them aren’t actually princesses.

Princess to me doesn’t hold the ring of respecting women. It conjures up images of paternalistic protectionism, rescuing the damsel in distress.  So fine, I twitch a lot less when a dad calls his daughter his little princess, because he should be looking out for her. (And presumably not looking for a husband and political deals.)

But please don’t treat grown women like princesses. Treat us like unique, powerful, and beautiful human beings who are worthy of respect.

Or if we must stick with the verbal paradigm of royalty, Queen is acceptable. But only if you mean Queen in a sort of Elizabeth I/Maleficent way. Because fuck yeah.

Categories
feminism

LOL your personhood amendment

I’d heard that we were going to get the Son of the Revenge of the Personhood Amendment from the Black Lagoon in Colorado this year. I rolled my eyes so damn hard that I think I might have pulled a muscle.

Oh, guess not. 

The attempt to get the Personhood Amendment (tl;dr version: fetuses have rights, women don’t) on the ballot was shot down due to a lack of valid signatures. The campaign only turned in 106K signatures, and had 24K knocked off as invalid, which put it below the threshold for making it onto the ballot. Of course the campaign is now going to take legal action on this, but I have high hopes for that being a complete bullshit move.

They tried to have a Personhood Amendment in Mississippi last year. In Mississippi! It failed by something like a ten percent margin.

Maybe when Mississippi is telling you that your ridiculous anti-choice bullshit is too draconian, it’s time to pack it in.

Because I don’t know. Maybe even women who hate abortion like having access to birth control. (You know, birth control. The number one thing that helps prevent the potential need or desire for an abortion.) Or being able to have access to in-vitro fertilization. Or don’t want their vagina treated like a crime scene if they have the poor taste to miscarry a baby that they wanted. Maybe women are getting tired of being characterized as wombs with legs who lose all agency when they get pregnant. (That’s for sure one of the main reasons I have an absolute horror of being pregnant. Kat, I don’t know how you do it, you’re amazing.)

Personhood Colorado, please take the hint and fuck off.

Categories
feminism

No. No you did not misspeak.

In case you missed the news flash, Todd Akin, congressman and candidate for Senate in Missouri, is a despicable shitbag who lacks even basic understanding of human biology:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
(from WaPo)

Of course, having called down the fury of every human being on the planet with even a shred of decency on his head, he immediately backpedaled:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year…”
(same article)

No, Todd Akin. You did not misspeak. Unless by “misspoke” you mean “Whoops I told everyone what I actually think and now you’re all mad so I guess I’d better lie my ass off.” Misspeaking means you said pineapple instead of papaya when you were talking about what you had in your fruit salad. It means you had a brain fart and forgot the word ostracod in the middle of a presentation. You don’t get to pretend it was just a little verbal flub (teehee!) when you flaunted not only your jaw-dropping ignorance but your complete lack of empathy as well.

Don’t you dare, for shame, speak of empathy. If you had a single speck of empathy in your being, you wouldn’t be attacking the suffering and trauma of countless women and men by implying there is even such an animal as a rape that doesn’t count.

And no, this does not come out of the blue. Justine Larbalestier has a nice summary on her blog about just how pathetically ancient this “legitimate rape” line is. Guess it’s nice to know he’s getting his knowledge of reproductive mechanisms from the eighteenth century, along with presumably his understanding of biology in general as well. He’s not alone in this backward clinging to long-debunked ideas. However, for bonus laugh-and-cry-simultaneously fuckery, I will note that Akin is on the House Science Committee. Awesome!

Even better, Akin has since clarified his position even more on Mike Huckabee’s radio show:

Huckabee asked Akin whether he was talking about “forcible rape” when he used the term “legitimate rape.”
“I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word,” Akin said.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this. Remember last year? Remember when the Republicans tried to pass a bill prevented Medicaid funding of abortions except in cases of “forcible rape,” only backing off when it called down a veritable firestorm on their heads? Todd Akin was in on that too. A hell of a lot of Republicans in the House were, including Paul Ryan. Akin didn’t misspeak now, and it was no mistake when he supported that “forcible rape” language either; he hasn’t changed his mind, he’s just taken another reminder that he shouldn’t say those things out loud where people of conscience can hear.

I have seen a lot of conservatives attacking Akin and distancing themselves from him. Good for them, and I surely do appreciate it. But this “legitimate rape” thing is just the same as the despicable “forcible rape” language of last year – Akin himself has confirmed that. This is an attempt to redefine the very idea of rape to the detriment of victims and the benefit of predators. And now one of the supporters of that gem could be the next Vice President.

The eighteenth century called. They want their science and their values back.

Categories
feminism rants writing

You know what else is part of the beautiful spectrum of human experience?

Not having kids.

Articles like this one seem designed to piss me off and make me pound out ranty things on my keyboard.

Yet putting yourself last is one of the best things that can happen to a writer. I make no moral claims for motherhood ­— which can bring out the worst in a person, in the form of vicarious rivalry, bitchiness, envy and even mental illness — but going through the ring of fire does change you and bring about a deeper understanding of human nature.

Well, Mrs. Craig, I’d argue it hasn’t given you a deeper understanding of the human nature of people who aren’t particularly interested in having kids.

I arrived at the essay by way of one of Amanda Marcotte‘s tweets. She made the very excellent point that you don’t see concern trolling of this sort going on about Gore Vidal or any other male author that dies. I would hope that children are a similarly transformational experience for the men who are invested in them, and that does seem to be the case from my own personal observations. A little unfair to the men, hey?

Really, it’s unfair to everyone. From start to finish, once I got past the sound of blood rushing in my ears, the essay reads like a personal justification. Sure, Mrs. Craig has less time to write, but she’s traded it for a deeper understanding of human nature and therefore that choice is superior! Or something! Everyone should do it! Have babies, it makes you more awesome and a better writer!

I am not here to make fun of the choice to have children. It’s obviously been very meaningful for Mrs. Craig, as it is for many people who go that route in their lives. But I am going to challenge this implication of inherent superiority. Having children is one branch in the path a human life can take, a major direction. It leads to one set of unique experiences and feelings.

Not having children is just as major of a path, and diverges from itself even when you consider the question of if it was by choice or not. That leads to a whole different sort of life, a different array of feelings and experiences.

Neither is superior.

The whole point of art, whether it’s painting or writing or interpretive dance or covering yourself with pudding and being an installment piece on the sidewalk for an afternoon is that you are trying to communicate and imagine through the lens of human experience. Frankly, if we all had the same experiences, I think it’d be pretty goddamn dull. It’s about getting out there and living your life to the fullest extent you can and then sharing what you’ve learned and felt and loved and lost and hated with everyone else.

Because none of us are immortal. We can’t feel every feeling and experience everything that there is in this constantly expanding world of ours. It’s not possible. That’s why there’s art, because it’s one way to share, to help people taste a life they will never otherwise know.

For some of us, living life to the fullest is having children and watching them grow, feeling all that love and pain. For some of us, it’s using the extra time and money to ride a bike along the Great Wall of China and dance until three in the morning and kiss a stranger and then have the worst hangover ever. What matters is that we’re living and creating. Unless the person you’re squaring off with does nothing but pick their belly button and watch Real Housewives, your life path isn’t inherently superior. It’s just different.

And different is good, right? Because I don’t want to live your life, as fulfilling as you find it. I want to live mine.