On "Behind Every Jane Jacobs Comes Giuliani with his Nightstick."

@ECW it's not that gentrification is racist, per se, but it's part of a larger history of socio-economic inequality that has prevented low income people from building wealth (both economic and social wealth) by pricing them out of their historic communities. Gentrification also often forces out local successful businesses because they don't fit a modern image of what a bustling economic center should look like; white or wealthy values displace existing community values. Gentrification would be great if it was all about raising the value of abandoned or otherwise really distraught communities, but oftentimes it is displace existing vibrant communities.

Posted on October 1, 2014 at 3:44 pm 1

On It's Utilities, Not Me-tilities

::waves:: hi jenn!

Posted on September 26, 2014 at 4:42 pm 0

On Saving Gangnam Style

@andnowlights @fo yes hello, household with 2 people and 4 degrees here, $84K is a lot of money and yet totally normal ("normal").

Posted on September 5, 2014 at 5:14 pm 0

On The Year We Saved $10K: Paying the Imaginary Mortgage

@CaddyFdot I figured that was the difference - this doesn't say anything about healthcare or retirement either - but still....

Posted on September 4, 2014 at 6:53 pm 0

On The Year We Saved $10K: Paying the Imaginary Mortgage

@garli Ahhh should be 50K a year, net a $1,000 less than the OP per month.

Posted on September 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm 0

On The Year We Saved $10K: Paying the Imaginary Mortgage

I make a little over 50K and net a full $1,000 less (hah! now everyone knows, oh well) a month ::cries:: California is a cruel mistress

Posted on September 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm 1

On The "Give Everyone a Goalie" Kind of Sex Ed

@femwanderluster Ah yes, but we are talking about young men and young women (teenagers, kids really), who are not Scientists and are Not Thinking Clearly and have Shitty Sex Ed, and we are failing them.

Posted on August 22, 2014 at 1:42 pm 0

On The "Give Everyone a Goalie" Kind of Sex Ed

@garli My point exactly - both parties are responsible for sex and its consequences. Yes, obviously, as a woman I am going to care more about preventing pregnancy, but I don't think it's unreasonable to instill a healthy fear of getting their partner pregnant in young men and supporting them in taking responsibility for preventing it. Also I don't think it's fair to assume that men wouldn't utilize birth control if they had the chance. I don't think I did that, and if I did, I didn't mean to. I am upset that there are no long term reversible birth control (much less short term but effective (ie the pill)) options for men. What 16 year old guy would have a vasectomy? Men's birth control options are condoms or surgery and I think they deserve better. (This is starting to get off topic, but: There's also a flip side of vasectomies being available, where many childless women are refused tubal litigations because "what if you change your mind?" Women are 100% responsible for their state of pregnancy, until they're deemed too uneducated or too "Ladies be changing their mind!!!" to take advantage of the option that works best for them.)

Posted on August 22, 2014 at 12:02 pm 0

On To Refund or Not to Refund, A Tumblr Message Exegesis

@sharongracepjs real life lol's, thought you should know

Posted on August 21, 2014 at 6:11 pm 2

On The "Give Everyone a Goalie" Kind of Sex Ed

I am ALL ABOUT comprehensive sex ed, condoms in the nurse's office, information about birth control options freely and widely available at high schools (even middle schools), but I have a lot of problems with this. 1.a) It doesn't solve the problem of young men having sex with girls who don't have an IUD. It doesn't empower (god I hate that word, but...) MEN to take responsibility to not get their partner pregnant. It teaches men and women at a young age that it is the women's full, sole, and total responsibility to protect against pregnancy and gives their male partners, I think, a free pass from having to take responsibility for that. 1.b) Along those lines, I feel like this sets up a possible scenario exactly like what Ester described - people can keep burying their heads in the sand about teenagers having sex, but they know their teen is protected. It's a band aid (albeit an effective one!) over the larger problem of the state of sex ed in this country. What happens if the women react badly to the IUD and get it taken out a year later? They're still just as uneducated about sex as they were before AND they have no long term protection. 2) It is also too close to state sanctioned sterilization for me? I don't know, maybe I'm cranky today (okay, yeah, I'm cranky today), and I know IUDs are reversible, etc etc, but this is the state putting a medical device in your body with no plans to take it out any time soon and....I don't know. Just rubs me the wrong way. 3) I don't love the idea of so totally messing with young girls' hormones? I mean I know that happens with the pill already, and see point 1.a - the onus on safe sex is ALWAYS, ALWAYS on the woman. I only know my body now because my hormones weren't being artificially messed around with as a teen, and I am sad that the only effective option is to mess around with these girls' bodies like this. TL;dr version - patriarchy hasn't made a male birth control yet. Fuck it, though, if it's working, it's working.

Posted on August 21, 2014 at 6:08 pm 1