text: B.J. Epstein 2016-05-27T18:09:20-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=bj-epstein Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for B.J. Epstein Good old fashioned elbow grease. The Breast Scenario: Breastfeeding is the Norm, End of Story tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.8123928 2015-09-11T13:31:10-04:00 2015-09-15T12:59:01-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ I've heard all these pejorative terms and more used to describe breastfeeders and those who promote breastfeeding, including most recently here in the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/shakira-akabusi/bullied-into-breastfeeding_b_8088722.html?utm_hp_ref=uk). In a recent article, a woman complains she was "bullied" into breastfeeding by the midwives and even by her own baby. First of all, let's state what everyone knows: breastfeeding is the biological norm. We don't need to claim it's best; it's the norm, and it's what mothers are biologically meant to do. There are, of course, reasons why some women can't breastfeed, such as taking medication that could harm a baby or having gone through chemotherapy, so it's great that there are alternatives for such situations. In general, however, breastfeeding is the way most women are able to provide the nutrition and comfort that is just right for their babies. Breast milk is individualised to each baby, whereas formula is the same for all. Midwives and other health professionals don't usually bully people; what they do is promote best practice and there's no doubt that breastfeeding is best (and breast) practice. So obviously midwives will want to ensure that women leaving the hospital know how to latch their baby on and are comfortable with that they're doing when nursing. That's a midwife doing her job, not bullying patients. Unfortunately, many midwives are pressed for time and aren't able to spend precious minutes, or even hours, working with a woman and her baby; the author of the article is lucky the midwives in her area had time to spend with her. In my own case, several midwives told me to just switch to formula; from what I've heard from friends, this actually is a disturbingly common suggestion. Furthermore, how can a baby bully anyone? Babies have needs, not desires, and being needy isn't threatening, manipulative, or bullying behaviour in any way. To ascribe bullying behaviour to a baby is unfair. Bizarrely, the author goes on to suggest that" bottle-feeding is the best scenario" for same-sex and adoptive parents. As one parent in a two-mum family, I can decisively say that breastfeeding is the best scenario for our child, just as it would be for most babies. Perhaps the author thinks all same-sex couples are male. Other possible scenarios for adoptive or male parents include trying to induce lactation, using a supplemental nursing system with donor breast milk, or using donor breast milk in bottles. This would help babies get the benefits of breast milk. I often feel that those who choose to formula-feed (versus those who had no choice) can be quite defensive of their decision, and they therefore lash out at the supposed "mafia" of breastfeeding-promoters. Sure, breastfeeding isn't always easy and it can cause pain (often curable with some professional advice and support). It also does tie you to your child, in that you can't really be far from an exclusively breastfed baby who is relying on you for nutrition. Some women may not want that tie/bond, but then why have a baby if you're not willing to give your time to that child? It's a pity that breastfeeding is currently not the cultural norm in the UK, and many other western countries, as there's absolutely no doubt that it is the biological norm. Women are free to make choices about how they feed their babies, but if you choose formula, there's no need to put down breastfeeding and breastfeeders. We need to change the cultural norm in the UK and try to support women so more mums breastfeed. Let's give it our breast shot.]]> Purses for Girls and Cars for Boys: Let Colouring Books Be Colouring Books tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.7195818 2015-05-04T19:00:00-04:00 2016-05-04T05:12:01-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ But according to two colouring books offered by Buster Books - "The Boys' Colouring Book" and "The Girls' Colouring Book" - that seems to be the case. I was in the books section of a department store here in Norwich when I found these works prominently displayed (along with "The Beautiful Colouring Book", which was in a vibrant pink and contained many similar pictures to the "The Girls' Colouring Book" - no prizes for guessing which gender is supposed to enjoy this "beautiful" book). These books very blatantly suggest what girls and boys respectively ought to be interested in. I find it shocking and dispiriting that in 2015 we still see these outdated gender stereotypes propagated. Unfortunately, it's clear that campaigns such as Let Toys Be Toys and Let Books Be Books still have far to go. I am the parent of a young daughter and I am certain that she'll have interests beyond her appearance. As such, I wouldn't buy her a book with pictures of perfume bottles, cupcakes, and handbags to colour in. I find that limiting. The book for boys is somewhat less limiting - it has more of an outward focus and is less superficial - but I wouldn't buy it because it sends the message that animals and cars are for boys only. That's not something I want to teach boys or girls. I don't understand why there can't simply be colouring books for all children that contain a range of items. Children themselves don't decide to only be interested in, say, space or desserts based on their sex; it's adults who, implicitly or explicitly, tell children what is appropriate for them. It's upsetting and unsettling to think that in 2015, such stereotyped books are what is offered to young children. We must consider what messages we are sending both to children and their parents about what boys and girls are and what they might be as they grow up. I plan to buy my daughter colouring books that feature spaceships, trains, cakes, and plants, and anything else she might like to colour. It's time to let colouring books be colouring books, not yet another gender-specific item that constrains the next generation.]]> The Unequality Act tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.6939580 2015-03-26T19:00:00-04:00 2015-05-26T05:59:01-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ This is what I was asked by a salon in Norwich where I go for massages. I was told that the salon needs to keep all its clients happy and therefore they'd appreciate me taking my baby and my breasts elsewhere. Never mind that I feed my baby for a few minutes before my massage so she'll be calm, relaxed, and quiet while I have my treatment (and thus not scream from hunger and bother other customers). Never mind that her head covers my breast while she feeds so it isn't as though I am sitting there bare-breasted. Although the salon keeps stacks of fashion and gossip magazines in the waiting room, most of which feature pictures of cleavage and more, so I don't know why a glimpse of a breast doing what it's meant to do disturbs the people who read such publications. Never mind that I too am a client and it would be nice to have my needs considered. Never mind that people don't have to watch a woman breastfeeding if they find it upsetting. They control their eyes. And, most importantly, never mind that the salon telling me not to breastfeed in a public place is a clear case of discrimination. Since the salon is a public location, I am allowed to breastfeed there, unless it's a health and safety issue (which it isn't). The Equality Act of 2010 makes this extremely clear. When I pointed all this out to the salon, I was told that they weren't aware that it was illegal to ask me to breastfeed in a private room. How a business can be run without an awareness of the law is rather worrying. It makes you wonder what other laws they might be ignoring. The salon told me they were just trying to offer me a peaceful and quiet spot. Well, sure, we all appreciate peaceful and quiet spots, but not when we're told we have to be there so we aren't visible to close-minded, bigoted people who find a natural act threatening. In principle, treating people equally, in accordance with both the Equality Act and common sense and decency, doesn't seem like a terribly hard concept. But as our society shows time after time, some people just aren't willing or able to do so, even when it's enshrined in law. The obvious analogy is if they'd said to me, "You being a Jewish person in our waiting room makes some people uncomfortable so could you do it in private? There's a room that you can sit in alone so you don't upset the other clients." The salon's owners have assured me that this was all a mistake and a misunderstanding. I have suggested they place "breastfeeding welcome here" signs on their premises to show that they encourage breastfeeding and are aware of the law. This would potentially also help all those women who are scared of feeding their babies in public, because they worry about what reactions they'll get. I hope the salon does put up such signs, but the larger issue applies to many more businesses and individuals than just this one place in Norwich. Breastfeeding in public places is a legal right in the UK. People need to recognise this. They need to stop discriminating, whether blatantly or subtly, against breastfeeding women. Those who breastfeed are doing the best thing for their babies, and it is only ignorance and foolishness in our society that is to blame for people believing that half-naked models are more acceptable than women breastfeeding. The Equality Act must be implemented and followed, and it's breastfeeders who need to be made comfortable, not stupid people who can't stop staring and then whine about what they've seen.]]> Improved Parental Leave: The Way to Have Children and a Career tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.6751380 2015-02-26T19:00:00-05:00 2015-04-28T05:59:02-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ Guardian, Helen Russell wrote an article complaining about the high cost of childcare. She said that this stands in the way of women having both children and a career and she praises countries with more generous systems in place for childcare, such as the Nordic nations, noting that women can go back to work sooner and thus continue building their careers. While she's not wrong about exorbitant childcare fees and the pressure they put on parents, I think a larger point is missing from opinion pieces such as hers. The real issue here is that our society doesn't place any importance on parenting; that's why parents are urged to rush back to work. The work of raising children doesn't seem to be viewed with real respect. If it were, parental leave for working parents would be fully paid, it would last longer, and it would include equal amounts of time for both parents. Maternity leave in the UK is more generous than many other countries, but it is still relatively paltry. For a woman who takes the full year, she usually gets six weeks at 90% of her salary, 33 weeks at £138.18 per week, and three months of no pay at all, unless her employer has made other arrangements. Meanwhile, paternity leave (which also covers the second parent in same-sex relationships) is a maximum of two weeks, usually with only one week paid for (and up to 26 weeks of additional paid leave if the other parent returns to week, but again at the statutory amount). Many parents simply cannot afford to take the full leave due to the low sums they get. They have no choice but to return to work even if they'd rather have more time with their children. In her article, Russell fails to mention that in the Scandinavian countries she praises, parental leave lasts longer, comes with more money, and includes more time for the second parent. Also, while good nurseries can be wonderful places for children, it isn't necessarily helpful or healthy to place a ten-week infant or a six-month baby in a crèche. What babies need most at this tender young age is consistent loving care, and even the best crèche doesn't have the staff to provide this at a one-to-one level for each child. But a parent can. Plus, breast milk is undoubtedly the best source of nutrition for babies, and how are you supposed to breastfeed a baby if you're at work and the baby is in a nursery? Yes, employers are technically obliged to provide a space to pump your milk and a fridge for you to store it in, but this doesn't always happen and it isn't always convenient. (I work at a university and as far as I know, there's one breastfeeding room on the entire campus, so women who don't have their own offices need to find a way to leave their work and get across campus to a single room that may be occupied by someone else.) While it's important to acknowledge that not all parents want to be home with their very young children and that childcare provision does need to be improved, many parents do, and research shows that this is beneficial for the babies and for the parent-child relationship. Having a career is important and necessary, but it isn't all there is at all stages of one's life; taking a year to be home with your child doesn't mean you can't pick up your job and continue to develop your career again. Governments need to acknowledge how essential a strong foundation is for children. Better parental leave would help create that foundation. If, for example, parents could share two years of fully paid leave however they wanted, children would a good start to life, parents would get the joy of experiencing a precious time in their child's life and would then feel ready to return to their careers, and society as a whole would benefit. We need to recognise how hard and how worthwhile raising children is rather than focusing on how quickly we can get our babies into crèches.]]> 'Aggressive' and 'Stingy': Anti-Semitism in the UK tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2015:/theblog//3.6504236 2015-01-20T19:00:00-05:00 2015-03-22T05:59:01-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ Back when I was a PhD student, I gave a talk at a conference in Edinburgh. During the coffee break, a British man came up to me. "Your last name sounds Jewish," he murmured. I responded in the affirmative. "Have you considered what you'll do when you finish your PhD?" he asked. I told him I hoped to get an academic job here in the UK. He looked at me and said, "I'd seriously advise you to change your surname if you want a job in the UK." I must have looked confused, because he went on to tell me about academic research that he and others had carried out. This research suggested that British employers were much less likely to invite people with Jewish-sounding names to be interviewed for jobs, and also that Jews were less likely to be hired or promoted. The man confided in me that he'd been born with a Jewish surname, but he'd changed it to help his career. He said he knew many other people who'd done the same. He suggested that if I were to keep my surname, I'd have more luck finding a job in the US. I kept my last name and did in fact get a job in the UK, but the amount of anti-Semitism I've experienced in the years since has been upsetting. I've had a colleague tell me that our department shouldn't hire any more Jews because Jews are "aggressive" and "noisy". This person said that Israelis were particularly bad. I've had other colleagues tell Jewish "jokes". I doubt they'd tell such jokes about other groups of people. In literature classes where we've discussed books with Jewish characters (such as George Eliot's Daniel Deronda), I've had students tell me they'd never met a Jew before, but that they knew Jews were greedy, stingy, and cruel. (Sure, this has been useful from a pedagogical perspective, but it hasn't been nice to hear.) I've seen calls, including in one of my research fields, for academic boycotts of Israelis and their work, as though boycotting the free exchange of information and ideas would help political causes. But of course it isn't just within academia that there's a problem. Synagogues and Jewish schools have security guards outside their doors. And, as the BBC reported, Jews are afraid for their lives. The UK isn't alone in this. When I lived in Sweden, I was asked multiple times if it was true that Jews secretly ran the media in the US. I saw swastikas painted around the city where I lived. And as a child in the US, I was called a "dirty Jew" and told that other children's parents wouldn't allow them to play with me or have me in their house. Sometimes it's hard not to be despondent at all the anti-Semitism. So it's positive that Theresa May and others in the government want to do something about the situation. We just have to hope that heightened security will protect British Jews while increased efforts at education will begin to decrease the negative feelings towards them. It's not news that there's anti-Semitism here, but it is news that people are finally beginning to pay attention to it.]]> Titillating tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.6283310 2014-12-07T19:00:00-05:00 2015-02-06T05:59:01-05:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ That's an exclamation that has multiple possible meanings. It is something that men might shout at women, showing off their misogynist views, including the belief that women's bodies are public property. Some people might expect women to wear revealing clothes or to take everything off, in films or on the pages of publications or on the internet or in person. We women can argue against it, talking back to these men, telling them that our breasts don't exist to be sexualised by people like them. "Get your tits out" might be a feminist call to arms, women baring our breasts, metaphorically or sometimes even literally, to speak up for our rights. We have the right to exist, and our tits have the right to take space in public, even as some men would oppress us and try to keep us hidden. At other times, women might use the phrase jokingly or romantically, flirting with one another, objectifying each other, but also recognising that we are doing so. We might love women's bodies, but we also try to appreciate the person inside the bodies. Now, however, my tits are public and political in a new way. My baby's rooting movements, smacking lips, and tiny cries equate to "Get your tits out, Mama." So I do. My child needs to be fed, and thus I feed her. But, as has been shown in the news this week, a lot of people seem to object to this. While they're perfectly happy for women to show off their bodies for men's pleasure and for marketing purposes, somehow the original, natural function of breasts isn't acceptable. Such people - who object while objectifying - conveniently seem to have forgotten that they wouldn't exist without women and women's breasts. They act as though they are disgusted by breasts serving a baby, while expecting those same breasts to serve and titillate adults. Clearly, something has gone awry in our society. My baby is only two months old and while I haven't been encouraged to drape a napkin over me or to sit in a corner while breastfeeding her, the way Louise Burns and other women have been, I too have faced some odd comments and unwelcome advice. This doesn't seem to be at all unusual, unfortunately. It's been suggested to me that appropriate, discrete places to feed my baby while out in public are my car and a public toilet. Neither place is comfortable and the latter is certainly far from hygienic. Few adults like eating meals in cars or toilets, and I wonder why they think babies should. While breastfeeding at a restaurant, I was politely encouraged to face the wall instead of the room, so as not to upset or bother anyone. I've been offered a scarf to cover myself with, even though having to fiddle with some cloth can make feeding more complicated, plus it may distract or overheat the baby. And anyway, I'm not forcing anyone to look (I'm not trying to "ruin your day with tits", as the Sparrow Folk song goes). I've also grudgingly been told, "I don't mind if you feed here." I don't really care if anyone minds - the law is on my side, and my baby needs her meal. Let's not forget that even though every person in our world was once a baby and therefore our culture ought to be more baby-friendly than it is, there are few amenities for parents of small children. In the city where I live, I know of only two public feeding rooms, each in a store. If you don't happen to be near either of those stores when your baby gets hungry, you need to either sit on a bench outdoors or spend money to go into a café or restaurant to find a clean, calm, warm place to rest. (And I won't even get into the issue of how there are so few baby-changing facilities around). For those who say that breastfeeding mothers should stay home with their children, they obviously have no understanding of what parenting involves, and their attitude smacks of sexist, anti-woman views. And besides, if they genuinely think that mums and babies shouldn't be out and about, then they ought to pay more in taxes to increase maternity leave and maternity pay. That way they can get what they want and mothers will be able to stay home and breastfeed their children for longer. As it is, women have to rush back to work before they and their babies are ready, all because our society doesn't value parenting and all it entails. In some circumstances, tits are indeed titillating, and that's fine. But in general, breastfeeding mothers aren't trying to titillate anyone with their bodies (many aren't even comfortable with their postnatal bodies). So it's up to individuals to try to change their perspective on breasts and to recognise the importance and thus the complete acceptability of breastfeeding in public. When my baby cries, "Get your tits out, Mama," that's what I do, and I'm going to continue doing so, no matter what anyone else says or does. A baby has the right to be fed, and I have the right to get my tits out to do so.]]> As Happy as a Pig in Lit? The Dangers of Anthropomorphism in Children's Literature tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.5898490 2014-09-30T19:00:00-04:00 2014-11-30T05:59:01-05:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ As animal lovers and aspiring Doctor Dolittles, we can see the appeal of an anthropomorphic animal kingdom in children's literature. What child isn't going to be fascinated by a talking pig? It's magical, after all. It's also a tried and tested way of selling lots of copies. We can see the appeal, but we can also see the potential pitfalls. Having a hang-up about the use of anthropomorphism in children's literature is nothing new. But as it's World Vegetarian Day on 1 October, it would seem like a good time to challenge anthropomorphism on the grounds of its impact on animal welfare, particularly for those classified as farm or food animals. The traditional argument in support of anthropomorphism is that such stories help to increase a child's understanding and empathy for animals. But. If humanised portrayals increase a child's empathy for animals - and such portrayals are ubiquitous across children's books, cartoons, films and toys - why do those with a positive attitude towards animals occupy such a marginalised position in society? If we are all exposed to the same anthropomorphic material, more or less, why do so few genuinely care about animal welfare? After all, only 2% of the UK population are vegetarians. Most people wear leather. SeaWorld is still in business. So. Why do we treat our best friends from childhood like our worst enemies in adulthood? What's going wrong? Part of the problem is that many people don't think there is a problem with the way animals are treated. Some maintain that non-human animals have no other function than to feed, entertain and serve human animals. Whereas others are genuinely (or wilfully) ignorant of the appalling conditions upheld in the food industry, believing in the bucolic 'family farm' fairy-tale that children's literature has assisted clever marketing in perpetuating. The other part of the problem is that anthropomorphism does something very strange to characters in children's books. (Yes, even stranger than a pig doing somersaults and vocalising his thoughts on the nature of nothingness - see Charlotte's Web.) Anthropomorphism has the ability to make animals disappear. The real magic of animals is lost beneath a plethora of banal human characteristics. And how can you appreciate an animal when the animal isn't there? Much of anthropomorphic children's literature is also guilty of bestowing immortality upon its farm animal characters. And I don't mean the "Welcome to the Literary Canon Annual Dinner, please take your seat between Peter Rabbit and Winnie-the-Pooh" kind of immortality. I mean that pigs do many things in children's literature that they don't do in real life: talk, wear clothes, philosophise. But the most unrealistic of all is that they survive. SPOILER ALERT!!! Here are some facts about pigs your childhood reading may have overlooked: • Pigs on farms do not last very long. • They are not kept as pets. • If they were given names, they would recognise and respond to them. • Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and they wag their tails when happy. • Pigs dream and can see in colour. • They are sociable and prone to powerful emotions. • Pigs are similar in size to humans. • Common pig-farming practices include ear notching, tail docking, tooth extraction and castration. Often without anaesthetic. • Every pig is an individual. It is this last point that anthropomorphism complicates the most. In children's books such as Charlotte's Web and The Sheep-Pig, not every pig is an individual, only the protagonists. The billion or so offstage pigs remain anonymous, whilst the superiority of the pig protagonist paradoxically reinforces the stereotype of all other pigs being identically greedy, slovenly and stupid. We are not suggesting that all animal narratives should graduate from the farrowing crate to the factory farm to the slaughterhouse. These are miserable, unnatural places, and they have no place in children's literature. They have no place at all. But what we are advocating is a more accurate portrayal of animals in children's literature: portrayals like The Unbelievable Top Secret Diary of Pig that celebrate the inherent magic of animals, rather than ventriloquizing and trivialising them. After all, animals can do some amazing things, and not one of them involves a barbecue. B.J. Epstein is a senior lecturer in literature and public engagement at the University of East Anglia Mitch Johnson is a writer and vegan in Norwich]]> Don't Underestimate Children tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.5576802 2014-07-13T19:00:00-04:00 2014-09-12T05:59:06-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ New York Times had a 'debate' that wasn't really much of a debate at all. The editors posed the question: "Along with books about numbers and colours and how to say please and thank you are an increasing number that address politics, race, gender, sexual orientation and other issues. Should they?" The answer, for just about anyone who works on or researches children's literature or who has any understanding of children at all, is: Duh. Children's books aren't just there to impart lessons to children - i.e. all that stuff about "numbers and colors and how to say please and thank you". Sure, that's important, but children can also learn about those things from their parents or in school or in any of a number of other ways, and not just from books. Literature does much more than teach basic facts or social rules. Children, like adults, have the right to see books that reflect the world around them, and the broader world, too. That means, yes, featuring different races, cultures, genders, sexual orientations, religions, abilities, classes, ages, and so on, and also exploring political, moral, physical, and emotional issues. Children need to see both themselves and other people in the books they read. Children are naturally curious and open - it tends to be adults who are more narrow-minded, closed, and prejudiced - and children want to learn about life and about a wide variety of people. If adults think kids can't cope with differences or shouldn't have to consider potentially difficult issues, that probably says more about adults than kids. Adults have a sad tendency to underestimate children in general, and to underestimate their intelligence and curiosity in particular. In the New York Times, six different people wrote a response to the question posed by the editors. They didn't seem to disagree with one another in any substantial way, which again suggests that this supposed debate is really anything but. The one concern seemed to be avoiding propaganda literature that tries to brainwash children, and that's a sensible thing to be aware of, for readers of all ages. But no book is truly neutral in any case. Literature is not only a source of entertainment and real pleasure, but it can also serve as an important tool. For some children, books may be their only chance to experience life beyond their own neighbourhood or culture. Books let them meet and begin thinking about other people, other perspectives, other lives. If a book raises a challenging topic, that just allows the child an opportunity to think about it, and to talk to adults about it or to do further research on it. Kids aren't as delicate as adults like to think, and they aren't ignorant of what's happening around them. They don't need to be protected from reality. They don't only need books that teach them about manners and colours. Children have a right to see all sorts of topics represented in the books they read. Don't underestimate children, and don't underestimate the importance of offering young readers diverse and open children's literature.]]> LGBT History Month, a.k.a. Human History Month tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.4674663 2014-01-28T19:00:00-05:00 2014-03-30T05:59:01-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ We all should. But why? February is LGBT History Month in the UK. The aim of LGBT History Month is to recognise and celebrate all the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people who have contributed to society and to history, and to highlight relevant and important events and issues. Just as with Black History Month (October in the UK, February elsewhere), Women's History Month (March), or other such heritage months (such as Jewish American Month in May in the US), LGBT History Month seeks to call attention to an often overlooked group of people. During LGBT History Month, we might learn about LGBT people who have made or continue to make a difference to our world, including Alan Turing, Billie Jean King, John Maynard Keynes, Virginia Woolf, Benjamin Britten, Sandi Toksvig, Yotam Ottolenghi, Magnus Hirschfeld, Lily Tomlin, Tove Jansson, Alison Bechdel, or Stephen Fry. We can learn about their accomplishments and how they have changed science, literature, or many other fields. We might also learn about important events in LGBT history, such as persecution under the Nazi regime, or the Aids epidemic, or what happened at the Stonewall Inn. These are historical occurrences that involved people beyond the LGBT community and that helped shape the way our world is today. We might also talk about current events and LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage and adoption, the Olympics about to take place in distinctly gay-unfriendly Russia, the unfortunate spate of youth suicides, being out in the workplace, or immigration laws for same-sex partners. These situations too affect many and solving them requires collaboration between LGBT and non-LGBT people. During LGBT History Month, we might also consider coming out, and, regardless of our sexuality or gender identity, we could start working for LGBT visibility and rights. These are people, events, and issues that affect everyone, not just those who identify as LGBT. While people may belong to different sub-groups, whether based on ethnic, religious, gender, orientation, ability, political or other ties, we still all live in the same world. We owe it to ourselves and each other to learn as much as we can about the world around us, and this includes people both in and out of our distinct groups. LGBT rights, after all, are human rights. So how will you be celebrating LGBT History Month this February? At the University of East Anglia, for example, we're offering eight talks for LGBT History Month. The subjects range from same-sex marriage to children's literature, from composers to spirituality, from activism to trans history. There are lectures, workshops, parties, and all manner of other celebrations around the UK. So in February, come celebrate your humanity, and attend LGBT History Month events. Note: The University of East Anglia is hosting free talks for LGBT History Month that are open to everyone. Read about the subjects and the dates here: https://www.uea.ac.uk/literature/engagement/lgbt-history-month]]> The Value of a PhD tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.4630848 2014-01-20T07:36:03-05:00 2014-03-22T05:59:01-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ This is an important question, and not just for the person considering undertaking doctoral studies. What is a PhD worth to our society? An article by Audrey Williams June last week in the Chronicle of Higher Education explored the huge debts that people are taking on in order to get PhDs, even when they are aware that they might not get tenure-track jobs after they've completed their studies and might not even earn enough to be able to pay off their debts. One can ask why individuals are willing to taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars (or pounds) in debt in order to spend an additional three to eight (or sometimes more) years studying. But that's not a terribly difficult question to answer, really. For many people, the joy of studying and learning, the joy of contributing to a field and to the larger pool of knowledge, the joy of having a few years solely for reading, writing, researching, and thinking is worth almost any sum of money. Of course some people do it because they're desperate to have the "Dr." title, or because they think it will help them eventually get a job, or because they don't know what else to do with their lives. But even those students with slightly more pragmatic, or cynical, reasons still thirst for knowledge. The question that June's article leaves me with is why people should have to take on such debt. Why don't we, as a society, make a habit out of supporting PhD students with grants to cover their fees and their living expenses? In order to make a case for that, we have to consider this: What do people with PhDs contribute to our society? To start with, they are the people who teach the next generation at university (and, obviously, sometimes at primary or secondary school as well). They are the one who help shape minds, careers, and lives. They are frequently huge influences on young people. People with PhDs also do much of the research that leads to advances in all sorts of fields. They study genes and cells and try to find cures or treatments for diseases. They explore the environment and explain climate change, they predict the explosion of volcanoes or devastation of hurricanes, and they analyse air quality. They explain how literature works, how books get translated, how artists produced their masterpieces, how people make financial decisions, why certain industries are collapsing, and what various rituals mean in different societies. They write popular and academic articles and books in order to advance and spread knowledge. They comment on current events, give lectures, appear on radio and TV. They invent new technologies. They solve problems. They critique existing works or ideas, and offer new ones. In short, it is often people with PhDs who contribute much of the theoretical, and sometimes the practical, material to our society. Sure, I've heard all the jokes. I can't tell you the number of times that someone laughed at me for getting a PhD and said, "Hey, you know what PhD stands for? 'Pile the bullshit higher and deeper.'" Others have said, "A 'phudnik' is just a 'nudnik' with a PhD." In other words, they think people with PhDs are bores who don't contribute to society. They think people with PhDs do nothing of value, and maybe are nothing of value. But would our world develop at the same pace and in some of the same directions without these so-called "phudniks"? No, clearly it would not. We need knowledge, and we need people to be the keepers of this knowledge, and the advancers of this knowledge. Hence we need to encourage young people to get PhDs. But should they go into debt in order to do this? No, they definitely should not. Since people with PhDs often contribute to society, society in turn might want to help support them. It shouldn't cost so much to go on to advanced study. Perhaps PhD programmes should be free, supported by tax-payers, and those who are working towards PhDs should receive bursaries to cover their living expenses. In exchange, they can agree to work in a certain field or for a particular university or company or organisation for a specified number of years after completion. Those who don't complete can be required to pay back the bursaries they received. It isn't reasonable for smart, motivated people to go into debt in order to become highly educated citizens who contribute to society. There is a lot of value in PhDs, and it's time that we show just how much we value them.]]> Butch, Femme and Beyond: Books for Queer Parents and Their Kids tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/theblog//3.4555314 2014-01-08T19:00:00-05:00 2014-03-10T05:59:02-04:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ When the child comes home later that day, the books are in her backpack. "Did your teacher read these books to the class?" the mothers wonder. "What did people think?" The child says no, they didn't read the books. When the mothers talk to the teacher again, they find out that she doesn't think it is appropriate or relevant to the class to look at these books. After all, as far as she knows, all the other kids have one mother and one father. Meanwhile, a different lesbian couple in the same city is also raising children. But they don't own any books at all that depict same-sex parents. When questioned about this, one of the mothers shrugs and says, "Because my kids can see their lesbian mothers at home. They don't need to read about it, too." And as a final story, once while I am giving a lecture about LGBTQ literature for children, someone in the audience tells me with some astonishment that he had no idea that there were books like this. He seems thrilled when I recommend a few texts that he might enjoy reading with his kids. Previously, they'd only read books with heterosexual pairings. All of these anecdotes reveal something about families with two (or more) parents of the same sex. Sometimes queer parents aren't aware that they can buy or borrow books that depict families like theirs. Sometimes they are aware of it, but don't see the need. And sometimes they are aware of it and own some of these books but still have to face prejudice from others. Or even from the books themselves. None of these situations is ideal, obviously. Children who have queer parents but who don't see families like theirs represented in literature (or in movies or on TV) might start to get an erroneous impression about the way the world works. They might begin to think that their family is unique, and therefore strange and unacceptable. They might feel alone. They might think that they and their parents are abnormal or disgusting. They might wonder why they had to grow up in such a weird family. They might worry about what having two mothers or two fathers means for them and their future. These potential problems are compounded by the fact that some of the two-mum or two-dad books that do exist are rife with stereotypes, so a child might get incorrect messages about queerness. For example, a rather high percentage of queer picture books tends to show these parents only in butch-femme pairings, as though there are no other types of gay or lesbian relationships. Often, the pictures will show one mum with short hair, trousers, and a flat chest, and the other mum in a dress, with a curvy figure and long hair. The text might describe one dad as teaching the kids how to cook and do art, while the other dad fixes things around the house and washes the car. Encouraging young readers to think that queer pairings come with one butch and one femme in turn strengthens the incorrect assumption that all couples - regardless of sexuality - include one "male" and one "female". Meanwhile, the stories are often what I term "confirmation of normality" tales. They emphasise over and over that really, no, truly, same-sex parents are just as good, just as loving, just as kind, just as normal as heterosexual parents. The children in these books fret about having gay parents or they are bullied in school or made fun of by friends or neighbours, and finally they are told that everything is okay with their families after all. Perhaps this sounds sweet, but actually I think it raises more questions than it answers. Why not just show same-sex parents and their kids getting on with their lives? They know they're a queer family, and they don't have any issues with it. So why should the texts keep banging on about how they really, really, honestly, definitely are normal? While there are some good LGBTQ books for queer parents and their kids, there aren't enough. So consider this a call to action. Pick up your pens (or turn on your computers) and write some great books that aren't stereotyped and that are about something more than the parents being LGBTQ. There's a lot more out there than just butch and femme. Note: If you want to try your hand at writing LGBTQ children's lit, come along to a workshop at the wonderful Gay's the Word bookstore in London on 26 January at 12.30 pm. For more info, visit the Facebook page here]]> Going Low-Brow at the University of Kent tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.4371288 2013-12-02T19:00:00-05:00 2014-02-01T05:59:01-05:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ This week, the University of Kent's creative writing programme embarrassed itself by its advertising strategy, followed by a series of rather ignorant tweets. In the promotional material on their website, they wrote, "At Kent we are committed to high quality literary fiction, and the most exciting and experimental contemporary poetry. We love great literature and don't see any reason why our students should not aspire to produce it. We are excited by writing that changes the reader and, ultimately - even if it is a very small way - the world. We love writing that is full of ideas, but that is also playful, funny and affecting. You won't write mass-market thrillers or children's fiction on our programmes." Right. So basically, the University of Kent is implying that children's lit and thrillers can't possibly be "full of ideas", "playful, funny and affecting", or "great literature" (or, for that matter, that good fiction can be mass-market and can actually make some money). They seem to have quite a limited and limiting idea of literature in that case. What's especially intriguing is that they go on to list some of their favourite writers, and some of those authors are genre-breaking, creative writers who force readers to reconsider what literature is and how we write it. Art Spiegelman, for example, is named on the website - funny how the folks at Kent are happy to accept a writer of comics, but somehow consider children's literature to be beneath them. They also claim to be "excited" by travel writing, but that too would traditionally not be considered "high-brow" literature. They seem a little confused, and more than a little snobbish. Kent didn't make things better by responding to the criticism on Twitter, "Sorry for slow response. We were writing adult novels. To answer your question we don't teach YA or children's fiction. The Weirdstone of Brisingamen is one of my favourite novels, and I admire Pullman. But both of them write brilliant novels that transcend any generic labelling. I agree that the sentence you cited is oddly sneering, but there are many CW courses that claim to teach a bit of everything. We don't. We teach literary novels." Not only was their promotional material "oddly sneering", but they continue to be "oddly sneering" in this follow-up discussion. They're too busy to respond to questions because they're writing for adults (that apparently is, after all, the most important thing one could do with one's time), and the only children's books they respect are those that "transcend...generic labelling" or, in other words, that could potentially be described as works for older readers. Certainly, many books - including some for children - that get published each year aren't necessarily well written, engaging, and/or challenging. But likewise many books are, and more than a number of them are marketed towards children (yes, there's Alan Garner, and Philip Pullman, as the people at Kent acknowledge, and there's work by Patrick Ness, children's laureate Malorie Blackman, B. R. Collins, Lewis Carroll, and many, many more). Being written for and/or marketed to young readers doesn't make books automatically lower quality or less worthy. After all, what could possibly be more important or more interesting than what texts we offer young readers? And why wouldn't young readers also want to read "literary novels" that are "full of ideas", "playful, funny and affecting"? One worries about a literature and creative writing department such as Kent's that has such a narrow, elitist view of what literature can be and what it can do. No one would claim that a single department needs to offer "a bit of everything", but I would certainly argue that a department that professes to teach literature and writing ought to at least have a solid understanding of texts from a wide variety of genres, and to not fall into old-fashioned high-brow/low-brow debates. As it stands, the average book for children is arguably more "full of ideas" than some of the people at Kent. Note: Thanks to UEA PhD student Alex Valente for calling this to my attention!]]> Being Honest, Changing Minds tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.4354320 2013-11-28T19:00:00-05:00 2014-01-28T05:59:02-05:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ That's the question Steven Petrow asks in his most recent article for the New York Times (in his regular column entitled Civil Behaviour). To me, the answer is fairly simple. Yes, we can change people's minds (even if the change is sometimes slower than we would like). And in order to change their minds, we need to come out. In my experience, and in the scholarly literature on prejudice, it seems that people often hold prejudiced or stereotyped views about different groups because that is what they have been taught and/or they generalise based on one or two experiences. Someone might have been told by their parents that all Jews are cheap and if that person doesn't know any Jews (or doesn't know that they actually do know someone Jewish), they would have no way of disproving this stereotype or challenging their assumptions. Offering people alternative information is a way of changing their minds. In one of my classes a few years ago, we were reading George Eliot's novel Daniel Deronda. One of my students said he didn't like the novel. "I've never met a Jew," he said. "But I know they're really stingy, unpleasant people. So I don't want to read about them." That comment, as uncomfortable as it was to hear, was an excellent learning opportunity. I was able to give him and his classmates some information about Jews and Judaism and to combat his prejudice. We also discussed stereotypes and where they come from, and we connected all of this discussion to the novel. The anti-Semitic student became much more thoughtful and engaged after that, and our seminars were successful. We often hold views that aren't accurate but that we hang on to because they're familiar, and because they haven't been challenged in any way. So we need to challenge people's views of homosexuality. Some think that gays are immoral. So why not let them know that the person sitting next to them in church is gay? (Not that going to religious services makes someone moral, but that's a discussion for another time.) Some think that homosexuals are incapable of long-term relationships. So why not say that your partner of however many years is the same sex as you? (Not that long-term and/or monogamous relationships are necessarily ideal, but that too is a different issue.) Some think queers shouldn't have children. So why not tell them about studies done on same-sex parenting and how the most important thing is for children to have loving parents of whatever gender? Some people simply have ideas they haven't reconsidered in years. They think that they don't know gays and that gay issues have nothing to do with them. They don't see why they should think about equal rights or about health issues or about their stereotyped views of humourless lesbians and camp men. So tell them you're gay and tell them how the lack of equal rights affects your life. Tell them what being gay means to you. Research shows that contact is the way that people change their prejudiced views. Once their children, grandchildren, friends, co-workers, fellow worshippers, and so on come out and people realise that they do know homosexuals, they will begin to reflect on the issues affecting them. In other words, if they think gay issues have nothing to do with them, they will continue to be at worst prejudiced and at best neutral. But once they understand that gay issues have something to do with someone they know and care about, they will start changing their minds. But it's not just homosexuality we need to change people's minds about, though that was Petrow's initial question. Writers such as Robyn Ochs and Dan Savage have written well on bisexuality, and the importance of bisexual people coming out. Because bisexuals can easily go undetected (if they are with same-sex partners, they are perceived as gay, and if they are with opposite-sex partners, they are perceived as straight), it is especially important for them to be out as much as possible. The same is true of transgender people, who could likewise be invisible in society if they choose. To combat invisibility and to therefore start changing people's minds about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender folks, we all need to come out. This doesn't mean that you need to tell the cashier at the grocery store that you are buying chocolate biscuits because they're your wife's favourite (unless that's usually the sort of conversation you have). It doesn't mean you have to make every conversation about your queerness. But it does mean that you need to be out about who and what you are. Challenging assumptions and prejudiced points of view is the best way of changing people's minds about any issue, including LGBTQ rights. If you're straight and/or cisgender, think about the people you know and consider who might actually be LGBTQ. And if you're LGBTQ, consider who you might be able to come out to today, and whose mind you might change just from being honest about yourself.]]> Twerking at Work: Images of Women in Society tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.4258459 2013-11-12T19:00:00-05:00 2014-01-23T18:56:26-05:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ Yes, Miley Cyrus's now infamous twerk-episodes are problematic for all the reasons people have discussed elsewhere (the issues include the misogynistic way Robin Thicke seemed to be using Cyrus, the racism inherent in some of Cyrus's moves, the overly sexualised depictions of women and their bodies, and the disturbing increased sexualisation of young people). And yes, as the recent Mumsnet survey shows, parents are very worried about what their children see and hear in music and music videos these days. But it's about much more than Cyrus herself, and it's likewise about more than the ensuing debate in the media, on Twitter, and elsewhere, with people such as Sinéad O'Connor and Annie Lennox getting involved. On a much larger scale, this is about how women are portrayed in the media and especially how female performers are under more pressure to display and use their bodies to an extent that male performers aren't. And this, in turn, means that it is about women in general and our opportunities in society. It is virtually impossible to watch a music video or to even attend a pop performance without seeing half-naked (or even practically naked) women pumping, grinding, and writhing, usually against a man. Pitbull's videos are a typical example of this. He's always fully dressed (often in a suit), but he's surrounded by women with blank expressions, their bodies barely contained by their bikinis, as though to say that women are worth nothing with their clothes on. Sure, these unknown women might be so desperate for a little fame and some easily earned money and a chance to rub up, quite literally, against the stars, that they happily disrobe. However, even major female stars appear unable to resist this trend. Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, and Jennifer Lopez all seem to wear the minimum possible. Maybe they're proud of the bodies they and their personal trainers have worked hard to sculpt. But isn't that a distraction from their music? What do their flat tummies and pushed-up breasts actually add to their performances? And as audience members, the question is: are we more interested in their talent or their bodies? Some might argue that it's empowering for women to choose how to dress and how and when to show off their bodies. But if it's so empowering, why aren't men doing it? Why aren't men whipping off their tops in music videos? Why don't they perform in thongs? Why don't they bend over on stage, letting fully dressed women spank them or thrust at them? It might just be that it's not the wonderful choice some people are quick to claim it is. Perhaps female performers feel pressured, even if they're not always aware of it, to keep people's interest. It's not enough, their record companies might tell them or their fans or the media might imply, to sing well or to write beautiful songs. Rather, they need to spice things up a little. And what better way than to get naked? One wonders what young children might think about all this. With their unfettered access to TVs and the internet, they quite quickly learn that men can become well-known just by having a halfway decent voice. Hell, men not only become famous that way, but they get to touch loads of gyrating women while at work. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? Meanwhile, women might have musical talent, but that's not all that they need in order to make a living. Having a sleek, hairless body, wearing a thick layer of make-up, and being attired in a bra and panties (and, ideally, high heels as well) while prancing around, spreading their legs and shaking their hips, and getting felt up by men are all also requirements for the female pop star. Is this really the message we want to send to the next generation? It's time for an open, frank discussion about women's role in society, and women's opportunities. If even supposedly powerful female celebrities have to do more than they might have bargained on in order to be successful and keep their jobs, what does that say about the rest of us? How might other women be treated at their places of employment, or while running errands, or by their male friends and relatives? To try to earn the same amount of money as a man, women generally have to work harder, put in more hours, and perform better. People like Miley Cyrus clearly aren't immune to this problem. So, no, it's not just about the twerking. It's about working, and it's about living. In a strange way, many women have to metaphorically twerk at work and in their private lives, and it's time for this to stop.]]> Dirty Work tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.4219588 2013-11-05T12:06:46-05:00 2014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00 B.J. Epstein http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bj-epstein/ Why should women waste their precious time putting on mascara and foundation and shaving their legs? Who has that kind of excess time? Personally, my goal is to get to work as quickly as possible in the morning and to start applying myself to the tasks at hand. Note: I mean applying myself to my work, not applying make-up to myself. More importantly, who cares whether I've powdered my nose or covered up the circles under my eyes? Why is that anyone else's business? How does it affect my ability to do my job, and to do it well? I certainly don't care if a colleague is wearing "electric blue eyeshadow" or a push-up bra. As long as someone does his or her job and is relatively collegial, that's all I care about. And I'd hope that that's all my students and colleagues care about in regard to me as well. If they want to complain that I'm not wearing lipstick, fine, but that's not something I'm going to take much notice of. And, of course, no one tells men that they'd better even out their skin tone and get "a neutral face" before they can turn on their computers. No suggests that a man had better shave his legs before he dares to wear shorts to the office. Why do we hold women to such greater standards of grooming? Where are the grooming rules for men? Sure, you could argue that in our culture, we prefer clean-shaven men, but I've noticed more and more unshaven male students and colleagues in recent years. And we have the "Movember" phenomenon right now, so lots of men these days are sporting moustaches (sometimes uneven, straggly, sloppy ones). I think the clean-shaven rule for men is slipping away. And I'd like to see it slip away for women too, as I've written in the Huffington Post before. The only one of Rothman's tips that I agreed with was going easy on the perfume. You never know what smells might offend someone or set off an allergic reaction. I'd add that you should try to keep relatively clean and not give off sweaty or other unpleasant aromas. The key is to not distract or sicken people. This only requires a minimum of grooming. Keeping as healthy and clean as possible is a good basic tip: so, yes, work yourself up into a lather. Anything beyond that is up to the individual. Personally, I go to my place of employment each day to work, not to be on a catwalk or to be filmed. And I certainly don't go to work to be critiqued on my looks. Few women do. So working women, it's time to unite. If you genuinely enjoy shaving your armpits and brushing blusher onto your cheekbones, fine. But if you feel pressured by society to comply with a certain level of grooming, why not throw out your razors and your pots of foundation and your nail polish? Or at least why not minimise how much you wear? Life is short. Focus on your friends, your family, your job, and your hobbies. Why waste your time and energy on trying to meet ridiculous standards of beauty? That's just dirty work.]]>


text:
Katie Bucy got a second chance and made the most of it, scoring the game winner Friday with under a minute remaining to give Issaquah an 11-10 victory over Lake Sammamish and its first Washington high school girls state lacrosse championship at Islander Stadium on Mercer Island.
Bucy, a Skyline High School senior who will play next year at Missouri's Lindenwood University, delivered the winner on a free-position shot after a goal just seconds earlier was disallowed on a shooting-space violation.
"That's the biggest goal ever," Bucy said while celebrating with teammates from Skyline, Issaquah and Liberty High Schools. "It was hit or miss, and this one was a hit."
The shot beat Lake Sammamish goaltender and Eastlake freshman Kristene Nickel low and to the left. Opposite of where she wanted to go with the shot.
- Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, rent
- What's the top spelling 'mistake' in Washington state? The answer could make you sick
- UW receiver Isaiah Renfro opens up about depression, announces he's leaving team
- So the NRA sends a questionnaire to a Seattle state senator ...
- 6 ways to befriend your bones and fend off osteoporosis
Most Read Stories
"I wanted to hit her top right but coach said go opposite. Opposite of normal," Bucy said. "You have to listen and have confidence."
For Lake Sammamish, which draws from the Northshore and Lake Washington School districts, the game was a disappointment after falling the previous two seasons in the state title game to Bainbridge and the Lakeside School.
"Our seniors fought so hard for this one," said Lake Sammamish coach Tony D'Alessio, one of the winningest coaches in Washington state with 64 wins and just 14 losses in his fourth season leading the Lake Sammamish program.
"You knew it was going to come down to whoever had the ball last," he said.
Suzy Emerson led Issaquah with five goals and three draw controls, while Nicole Victory and Meg Corscaden each had two.
Lake Sammamish was led by Sarah Wryrick with three goals and two assists and Alexandra Johnson with three goals and one assist.
From Mike McQuaid, sports information director US Lacrosse, Washington state chapter.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
24th ANNUAL "A DAY IN THE COUNTRY" Sat., June 4th - 9 am - 2 pm Ashbrook Farm - 2 miles north of Versailles Rd On Pisgah Pike, Fire Gate #24 Many new & used items for sale in a delightful country fair setting. plants & garden accessories children's clothing...More info Email a friend
STOCKYARD FLEA INDOOR/OUTDOOR This Sunday! May 29th, 2016 10am - 3pm Antiques, Vintage & Oddities AboundMore info Email a friend
Epic Moving Sale in Chevy Chase! Housewares,piano,laptop,desk,edger,books,microwave,clothes,etc.More info Email a friend
Huge 4 Family Sale. Furniture, electronics, tons of DVD's, workout equipment, home and kitchen accessories. Gently worn designer men's and women's clothing from Ralph Lauren, Lulu Lemon, Coach, Brooks Brothers, Lily Pulitzer, Kate Spade, JCrew, Loft. Kids...More info Email a friend
Moving sale: yard tools, antiques.multi-family. Rain or shine.More info Email a friend
TAXIM CT. #2912 Sat. & Sun. 11-4. Lots of misc.More info Email a friend
Garage Sale. 2500 Treeline Way. 5/28/16. Big Assortment.More info Email a friend
ESTATE SALE 1921 Edgeworth Dr SATURDAY 8-4 Stackable washer & dryer, stove, fridge & misc.More info Email a friend
TULSA RD. #2461, Sat. 8-4, Sun. 2-6, Mon. 10-4. Furniture,childrens clothes, electrical equip., misc. itemsMore info Email a friend
Large Multi Family Sale - Old tools, antiques, household items, glassware, much more. All priced to SELL!More info Email a friend
Need a job?
Need to hire some help?


text:
Manufacturing Area
Category: Rulers, Protractors and Triangle Sets
CKS' Cutting ruler is built with a steel rod that has an equal length of the ruler at bottom for cutting purpose which could prevent the ruler hurt by knives or cutter. Imprinted scales on the body ...Keyword : metric ruler | plastic ruler | cm ruler | inch ruler | cutting ruler
08955 6"/15cm 08956 12"/30cmKeyword : plastic ruler
Category: Plastic Products
... ilable in any size, width or die-cut shape. We can print your plastic draw rulers from your supplied disk or can assist you in creating an eye-catching design for your custom printed plastic rulers.Keyword : draw ruler | plastic ruler
Category: Plastic Industry
Custom PVC ruler for Kids Material PVC, eco-friendly ABS, PET, PS Dimension ISO 85.5*54mm with round corner, or customized size Thickness ISO 0.76mm, 0.2mm-2mm are all available Finishing Laminated ...Keyword : ruler | PVC ruler | plastic ruler | ruler for kids | 3d ruler
We are factory and exporter of ruler set ,combo set, plastic rulers, curve sets. Presently we are exporting to Germany, USA, Japan, Korea , Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya etc. We ar ...Keyword : ruler sets | plastic ruler
Category: Plastic bags
Material: plastic plastic Type: PVC Bag Type: Stand Up Pouch Industrial Use: rulers Feature: Recyclable Surface Handling: Screen Printing Sealing & Handle: Button Closure Custom Order: Accept ...Keyword : pvc ruler bag
Category: Plastic Materials (Plates, Sheets, Strip & Rods)
12"&30CM Flexible Curve ruler Flexible ruler, Flexible Curve, DIY ruler, French Plates Specification, Flexible Curve rulers are popular used in garment design and arts. 1>Instantly adj ...Keyword : flexible curve ruler | drawing design curve ruler
Category: Moulds for Steel (Metal,Plastic,Rubber)
we are experienced in plastic stationery mould manuracture, like ball pen mould, gel ink pen mould, retractable pen mould, ruler mould, pencil box mould, pen holder mould and so on.Keyword : plastic stationery mould
plastic rulers in inch Can be made according to your requirementsKeyword : plastic ruler
Category: Screen Printing Machines
*Digital card printer *Bright and vivid *Water proof *Lowest printing cost Digital Transparent Business Name Card Inkjet Printer About us * Kunming Boyichuang Science & ...Keyword : plastic printer | ruler printer
Category: Measuring Tools and Tapes
Kearing Sandwich rulers are made of plastic,and all the reticles,lines are sandwich, Laminated for durability.And all the lines very thin but quite clear. Shanghai Kearing Stationery Co,. Ltd is the ...Keyword : ruler
Category: Promotion Products
promotional gift/ promotional ruler/ plastic ruler/ 15cm ruler/ ruler with sticker material: plasticKeyword : ruler | plastic ruler | 15cm ruler | ruler with sticker
... rinting machine for plastic ruler Application plastic ruler screen printing machine is special designed for printing stationery ruler with high speed and automatic. Building up printing and conveyi ... Keyword : plastic ruler screen printing machine | automatic ruler screen printing machine | math ruler screen printing machine | automatic plastic scale silk screen printing
Category: Machinery, Plastic Injection/Blow Molding
Material: HDPE, PE Features: 1) Stable performance with advanced Siemens PLC 2) Strong penetrability and good and swift distribution of the heat by letting the bottles rotate by itself and revo ...Keyword : plastic blow molding machine
Category: Plastic Manufacturing Machines
Guangzhou Tianyuan Silicone Rubber Machine Co., Ltd is a well- know domestic company which specializes in researching and developing TYM Liquid Silicone Rubber (LSR) Injection Molding Machine. The maj ...
Category: Plastic Injection/Blow Molding Machines
Vertical-type four-column clamping.vertical-type injection,mould-clamping force of 90 tons to 450 tons, ejection volume of 200g to 3000g. Chinese & English electrical control, screen display, effectiv ...
Category: Metal Cutting Machine Tools
Features 1.This machine is used for cutting 38,40,50,52,65 series aluminum alloy casement window, window material and 45° angle of new-style themalbreak aluminum window profile. 2.It can be adde ...
Category: Packing Material & Containers of Plastic
Foam packing material,Protective EVA packing Material:EVA foam(no toxic,no smell) Size:To the order Color:any Packing:PP bag Hardness:40-45 degree certificate: SGS,ROHS,EN71 Minimum Order Qua ...


text:
Skip to comments.Romney, Santorum Tie as Gingrich Voters' 2nd Choice - via Gallup
Posted on 03/16/2012 11:31:39 AM PDT by Fred
PRINCETON, NJ -- Republican voters who prefer Newt Gingrich for the party's 2012 presidential nomination are as likely to name Mitt Romney as their second choice as they are to name Rick Santorum, suggesting the race would not tilt in Santorum's favor if Gingrich dropped out.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
It's a mistake to write off Newt!
Movin' on up - again!
Not to mention, what if Santorum does a Howard Dean? Then what its Romney all the way?
Not to mention, what if Santorum does a Howard Dean? Then what its Romney all the way?
All I get from it, are all sorts of personal attacks and innuendo about how Santorum will easily win without Newt in the picture. Which is not at all true.
Time to break out the good stuff. This could get interesting...
Hard to believe but I guess some view Newt/Mitt as having stronger resumes, rather than voting on ideology. I know when I bought into the Gingrich bandwagon a lot was based on his "gravitas" as former Speaker.
So when Newt bows out, half of you will become Romneybots. I see.
I don't know where you have been the last month, but obviously, it does not include paying attention.
Romney has better than an 80% chance of winning, and considering the remaining states and Romney's overall poll numbers, it is almost a conclusion.
Our best chance is to force a Brokered Convention, and the only way for that to happen, is to keep Newt in the race, to deny Romney as many delegates as possible.
Well played. :)
ABMR>ABRS -> poll may lead to false conclusions
Thank God none of Santorum's worshipers are into VOO DOO! We would really be hurting right now!
So half of Newt's votes would go to Mitt if Newt dropped out.
Hey Newt, please stay in the game!
You didn't have show us a picture of you in your Halloween costume to make that point, did you?
No, that's not what it means. This was not a poll of FR Newt supporters, it was a poll of the general population of Newt supporters.
And yes, intelligence, accomplishment, resume are more important than ideology for many voters and those folks would, out of this entire field, normally pick Newt first and probably Romney second. They would have also been perhaps enamored of Cain (business) or Perry (governor).
They would not have had any interest in Santorum or Paul or Bachmann or Huntsman.
Again, this is about the "non FR" universe, which some here, sadly, fail to remember does exist.
Right, but any similar poll favoring your hero, are all spot-on legitimate, credible, peachy keen.......We see it every day here.
Reminds me of my trip to the bombed out Ba'ath Party House. My supervisor was from New Orleans and absolutely refused to go in the room where a couple hundred bodies were just concreted over. Said spirits were there.
Wow, I didn't realize so many RINOs were Newt supporters. Mitt will be begging him to drop out soon. Santorum needs to be quiet and thank the Lord for his blessings.
Gingrich should accept a VP spot to Santorum.
Many American voters, except for Seniors, were never taught the constitutional ideas that are absolutely essential to freedom for individuals.
Given the devotion of the current President to another set of ideas, no Republican candidate can win who is not able to lay a bright light of distinction between America's constitutional protections and the Marxian philosophy of government planning, control, and redistribution.
Romney's silly claim of "he's in over his head," and "he just doesn't understand the economy" will not cut it, and they underestimate the opponent in November.
He's already effectively admitted that he has virtually no chance of winning the nomination and Santorum has said that Newt is at the top of his short list for VP.
How do you know? In Missouri, where Gingrich wasn't on the ballot, Santorum got 51% of the vote. Even in Virginia, kooky Ron Paul got 41% of the vote in a one-on-one with Romney.
You are guilty of a colossal mis read of the tea leaves. Let me take a stab at clearing it up for you:
I would be that many Newt supporters (outside the FR universe) know that outside of being more reliable and more vocal on social issues, Santorum is no more conservative than Romney and understands far less about economics.
Go ahead and flame away, but if Newt announced Sarah as his running mate (long shot that she will accept though) we would end up with a dream team with debating skills beyond imagination. Not to mention a true Conservative ticket. Also, consider the fact that Sarah would be at the top of the list for future President of the United States.
Don't confuse the Santorum bashers with the facts.
Wouldn't you love to see Newt as president of the senate?? He's already been head of the other legislative body. Boy would he shake that place up, siezing the agenda from the majority and minority leaders, mastering the rules, etc.
It would be beautiful.
I could have shown the male evangelical pastor that was doing his male massage therapist, but I figured you did not want to be exposed..
Lol. Not true but very funny. Once this primary is over we will all be back as one team.
No kidding! I have seen a whole lot myself in the Asian side of the Globe, Brother, there is a great big World out there that sees things quite different from our version of Baseball, Apple Pie and Easter Bunny's.
One learns a rather realistic outlook when one is exposed to these things.
I can't stand the man but can't think of anyone better for the job. The things I dislike about him make him perfect for it.
No misread here. Forty percent of Newt's supporters had Mitt Romney as their second choice. Compared to Romney, RINOs look conservative. If they can even imagine voting for the father of Obamacare and the provider of $50.00 and free abortions, I can only imagine what else they would support.
Romney is a democrat. Since that 40 percent chose Romney, and not none of the above, I guess those Newt supporters don't have a problem with that.
That you're into gay porn is more than we needed to know.
Are you afraid you won't be able to find anymore of those types of pictures if Santorum becomes President.
You're the poster boy for the anti-Santorum vote here!
Newt is my first and ONLY choice.
I will not vote for either of the unqualified candidates.
I am not the one who endorsed Romney in 2008 and call him a true conservative.. As this video shows
I suggest you read post 18 it is describes exactly what is showing on this poll. The world does not evolve around your fanaticism.
I think this poll should help put to rest any notion that Newt ought to drop out. If 40% of them go Romney's way and 39% go Santorum's way, you need Newt to stay in.
The way I look at it, as long as Newt stays in I get to vote for him in my primary. After that, if it's an open convention, it's up to the 4 of them to convince the delegates that they are the one who should face Obama. It's not Newt's or Rick's responsibility to put the other one over the top now. It's their responsibility to do all they can to get the nomination. If Santorum believes the majority of the delegates will jump on his bandwagon in Tampa, then he has nothing to fear, right?
Go to the site and read inside further of these polls- And look at Newts pretty good for America being told over and over - deliberate misinformation- about the Speaker- like that he is too much of an insider, too old, now in the crazy man stage as in one never knows what he will say or do- and doesnt look like to have any chance even after his SC win, they reported thisor what about angry, to hes so bitter- And how he left his wives while one wife is dying as Newt-making a scene by as the wife for him to not leave her, as she is dying in the hospital (all lies, NBC) His former wife is well and has a productive relationship with Newt and their 2 children (daughters) today. Proves evil is among us, doesnt it..
I believe the media have played up the 2 weakest guys. They play the public like a fiddle. The public rarely outsmarts the media because too many of us are comfortable with things as they are. I think that we are going to lose because theres a deeper resentment towards Romney than it was for McCain. ( I think some is of Mitts religion-yes, I do, I said it) I keep talking to people who are saying they dont care any longer. Most of those cant understand why people are not supporting Newt. They feel the country is already lost and we need a tragic awakening to get a chance for bringing America back (so the lemmings and liberals can grow up to be an adult).
We keep our action groups motivated though some are becoming very troubled in believing change will not be allowed to come. One cannot give up, we must fight on.
Newt needs to stay in all of the way to the convention. He needs to keep talking about his reform policies; to keep positive against all of the media attacks. Be presidential, a statesman as even CNN refers to Newt from time to time. Dont give up knowing that you are smarter than the others and so desire to get in to work on improving things, Newt.- Keep the faith to all- God has a plan and that is for Newt to be at Tampa. Keep supporting Newt. He said that things would have low peaks and that the media will do anything to discredit him. Newt is our only hope. If he steps down, those other 2 will not get my help. I know this an important election cycle. We need another person in front. Newt Gingrich can bring the enthusiasm up with his IDEAS of Bold reforms.
We are in a stage to save our country; not just to get someone in who can be close to what we have now- i.e. banking corruption to the Wall Street companies, crony capitalism and the media manipulating the citizens. It is time to break up that corruption like Breitbart talked of doing. Break the media strangle hold and fight for a real change. Things have to get bad before a change comes-nothing comes easy when you are in a battle of which way you will allow your country to be. A foreign land or America, the beautiful. This is time to rebel, not go along. Dont lose your convictions by just going along. And dont allow this negative input that you read: to change your focus.
Mr. Speaker, keep going. American needs you. They need a person who understands what America is and what she is supposed to be. Thank you for standing up when you could have stayed home and watched the decay from the sidelines. God Bless you. Your supporters admire you and of the hope that you give to us.
Our best chance is to force a Brokered Convention, and the only way for that to happen, is to keep Newt in the race, to deny Romney as many delegates as possible.
Show me the math where keeping Newt in the race denies Romney more delegates. With about 800 of the remaining 1,200 delegates subject to winner-take-all rules, the lower-vote-getting conservative is almost guaranteed to play the Ross Perot role in some of those contests.
Check out this analysis showing states where Newt helps Romney. This analysis assumes only 56% of Newt's votes go to Santorum. Alabama and Mississippi are cases in point. Romney would've only got 6-12 delegates in those with Newt out of the race rather than the 23 he did get.
At best Romney and Santorum are tied on economic prowess. Romney certainly doesn't understand not to hike fees and taxes, not to means test Social Security, not to tie the minimum wage to inflation, not to stick with a progressive tax, and of course MA was 47th in job creation under his tenure. Santorum is arguably not much better on economics, but few Republicans could possibly be worse.
How could Romney be "vocal" on social issues? He's got nothing to say that Republicans who are pro-life and anti-gay marriage would want to hear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
The transmission won't shift right till it warms up. Put it in 2nd and will shift from 1st to 2nd. Put it in drive and it won't come out of 1st. After the car warms up, it seems to shift fine. Put it in drive or O/drive and it will go through the gears. Fluid level is ok. The trans supposedly was rebuilt in 2000. Some say it might be the solenoids, if so, where are they located? Others say get another trans. Any ideas?
by 78camaro in Seeley Lake, MT on August 25, 2010


text:
Junior Karolina Rozenberg won her first singles match of the year as the 49ers opened the season up with six victories.
Sept. 20, 2013
LAS VEGAS - Long Beach State women's tennis started off the fall season strong as the 49ers won six matches on day one of the UNLV Invitational.
Beach tennis fielded seven players for singles matches and three teams for doubles. Last year's Big West Freshman of the Year Ebba Unden began her sophomore campaign with a 6-3, 6-1 victory over New Mexico State University's Ash Shrivastava. Junior Karolina Rozenberg also won her match as she beat Tatum Rochin of Northern Arizona 6-0, 6-3.
Three freshman began their 49er careers off with victories as Maeva Razakasoa defeated Anita Lee of Southern Illinois, 6-1, 6-2 and Laura Eales won 6-4, 6-1 over Middle Tennessee State's Sarah Sediri. Hayley Thompson joined her classmates as she beat Southern Illinois' Lauren Hoeksta 6-0, 6-3. Fellow freshman Julie Gerard fell 6-4, 5-7, 6-1 to Alexis Thoma of the University of North Texas and Gabriela Tilkeridisova lost 6-1, 3-6, 6-1 to the University of Southern Alabama's Mary Angela Martin.
In doubles play, Laura Eales and Gabriela Tilkeridisova picked up the lone LBSU win as the duo won 8-4 over Arianda Cairo Baza and Gisela Cairo Baza of Southern Illinois. 59th-ranked pair Karolina Rozenberg and Ebba Unden lost a tight match by the score of 9-8 to Northern Arizona's Johanna Vang and Hailey Rochin and Maeva Razakasoa and Julie Gerardweren't able to pull off the victory over North Texas' Alexis Thoma and Augstina Valenzuela, falling 8-6.
The 49ers will continue both singles and doubles play tomorrow at 10 a.m. on day two of the Invitational.
Sport Links
- General Info
- Fox Sports Feature On Beach Tennis
- Camp Information
- Rhodes Tennis Center
- Team History
- NCAA History
- Beach Athletic Club
- Supporting Women's Tennis Flyer
- Related Links
- ITA Tennis Association
- College Tennis Online
Media Guides
Section 1Info and Profiles
Section 2Record Book and History
Section 3This is Long Beach State
Section 4Complete Women's Tennis Media Guide
More Headlines
Champs Again! Beach Tennis Wins Big West...04/26/2015 - W. Tennis
Beach Tennis is NCAA Tournament bound again. Top-seeded Long Beach State continued a dominant run...
Beach Tennis Back In Championship Match After 4...04/25/2015 - W. Tennis
Top-seeded Long Beach State advanced to tomorrow's Big West championship match with a 4-1...
Beach Tennis Advances With 4-0 Sweep Of Cal Poly04/24/2015 - W. Tennis
Top-seeded Long Beach State opened its Big West Tournament title defense with a quick 4-0 sweep...
Top-Seeded Beach Tennis Heads To Big West...04/23/2015 - W. Tennis
The No. 40 Long Beach State women's tennis heads to Indian Wells, Calif. this weekend for the Big...
Thompson Wins Final Weekly Honors Of 201504/22/2015 - W. Tennis
After a near flawless week on the court, sophomore Hayley Thompson was selected as the Big West...
Beach Tennis Closes Regular Season With Sweep...04/17/2015 - W. Tennis
The No. 41 Long Beach State women's tennis team heads into the postseason on a hot streak with...


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
Sold and Shipped by CS Power Corp
CS Power LED light bulb can save you up to 85% of your electricity and the never hot light bulb can be use for over 17 years. This product is UL, GS, CE(TUV), EMC, LVD, FCC, Rohs certified and may require installation by certified electrician. Energy saving & environmental friendly! It's time to go green and safe our planet!
- Bulb brightness similarity: = 150 Watt Incandescent Bulb
- LED'S Operating Life: 30,000 hours (17 Years - 20x longer than halogen)
- Input Voltage: 100V-240V AC
- Aluminium Housing Color: Argent
- Polarity: Bipolar Protection
- Power Factor: >0.7
- Efficiency: >85%
- Total Power: 16.5W
- Output Power: 15W
- Light Source: SMD 0.06W LED
- Luminous Flux Output: 850 lm
- Rendering Index: >70
- Beam Angle: 125±5 Degrees
- Total Size: D338 x H83±1mm (13.5 inches)
- Correlate Color Temperature: 4000K - 5000K
- Weight: 720±5g
- Operating Temperature: -20~+45 Degrees Celsius
- 3 Years Warranty
Filter Results
LED Light
This review is from: CS Power 15W LED Energy Saving Ceiling Light - Pure White
Pros: Nice bright light.
Cons: The connection wire are too short.
Other Thoughts: This is a revision of my first review. The wires to connect to the circuit were very short and not properly secured. I replaced the connection wires and secured them with the set screws and the light works fine.
Did you find this review helpful?
This item is eligible for Newegg Premier benefits. Are you a Newegg Premier Member? If not, sign up today and get:
Your request will be processed within the next 24 hours.
Please add "email@example.com" to your address book to ensure delivery.See Today's E-Blast Promo


text:
Most Expensive Emeryville Neighborhoods
Emeryville is a somewhat small coastal city (i.e. on the ocean, a bay, or inlet) located in the state of California.
With a population of 11,227 people and four constituent neighborhoods,
Emeryville is the 416th largest community in California.
Housing costs in Emeryville are among some of the highest in the nation, although real estate prices here don't compare to real estate prices in the most expensive communities in California.
Emeryville is a decidedly white-collar city, with fully 95.67% of the workforce employed in white-collar jobs, well above the national average. Overall, Emeryville is a city of professionals, managers and sales and office workers. There are especially a lot of people living in Emeryville who work in management occupations (13.32%), teaching (9.58%) and business and financial occupations (9.52%).
Also of interest is that Emeryville has more people living here who work in computers and math than 95% of the places in the US.
Of important note, Emeryville is also a city of artists. Emeryville has more artists, designers and people working in media than 90% of the communities in America. This concentration of artists helps shape Emeryville's character.
For a small city, there is also a high proportion of single, often educated, people living in Emeryville. This is not typical for smaller communities in America, and adds a feeling of vibrancy to Emeryville.
Emeryville is also nautical, which means that parts of it are somewhat historic and touch the ocean or tidal bodies of water, such as inlets and bays. Such areas are often places that visitors and locals go for waterfront activities or taking in the scenery.
Even though Emeryville is a smaller city, it has many people who hop on public transportation – mostly the subway for their daily commute to work. Typically, these people are commuting to good jobs in the surrounding cities.
Do you have a 4-year college degree or graduate degree? If so, you may feel right at home in Emeryville. 68.47% of adults here have a 4-year degree or graduate degree, whereas the national average for all cities and towns is just 21.84%.
The per capita income in Emeryville in 2010 was $53,155, which is wealthy relative to California and the nation. This equates to an annual income of $212,620 for a family of four. However, Emeryville contains both very wealthy and poor people as well.
Emeryville is an extremely ethnically-diverse city. The people who call Emeryville home describe themselves as belonging to a variety of racial and ethnic groups. The greatest number of Emeryville residents report their race to be White, followed by Asian. Important ancestries of people in Emeryville include German, English, Irish, Italian and French.
Foreign born people are also an important part of Emeryville's cultural character, accounting for 26.65% of the city's population.
The languages spoken by people in Emeryville are also diverse. These are tabulated as the languages people preferentially speak when they are at home with their families. The most common language spoken in Emeryville is English. Other important languages spoken here include Spanish, Chinese and Korean.
Get matched with a pre-screened, customer-rated real estate agent and
receive up to $2,000 or more when you buy or sell.
Get the Ultimate Agent…
Real Estate Professionals
according to rigorous sales and service benchmarks, and we constantly
survey our customers to make sure that Brokers in our elite network
are meeting your highest standards. We guarantee it.†
…Plus a Cash Award
How much cash could I get?
Home you're
Home you're
Calculate your award *
Your Cash Award
Select an option below. You'll hear from us within 1 business hour.
Buying: I want to buy a home in Emeryville
Selling: I have a Emeryville home to sell
Both: I wish to both buy and sell a home
(Our service is available nationwide)
Have questions?
Get free live help.
Customers Love Us
Our Agent Screening Process
*Not available in all areas. See
Terms and Conditions
for details.
Questions? Call Us Toll Free at 888-250-3200
Did you know that NeighborhoodScout data can be licensed via API?
Ask us how ›
Copyright ©
Location Inc®. All the trademarks displayed on this page are the property of Location, Inc®.
The NeighborhoodScout® search engine is covered under US Patents No. 7,043,501 and 7,680,859. Our nationally-comparable school ratings are covered under US Patent No. 8,376,755. Other US patent applications are currently pending.