[Originally Posted on Rosetta Stone's "Language Journeys" blog as Have Fun with Your New Language!] One thing I’ve noticed while trying to use German during my time in Berlin is that I’m having a lot of fun. While it’s true that I’m often frustrated—by what I cannot say—I really try to celebrate all my little wins.

What I like to do is to see how far I can get into any German-speaking situation without the person I’m speaking to transitioning to English. This is a very delicate surgery since Berliners are generally pretty fluent in English and always interested in practicing it. It reminds me a little of Operation, the battery-powered game where your physical dexterity is tested by trying to remove little white plastic ailments from an electrified patient. If you veer too far off course, the red bulb nose will buzz and flash indicating that the game is over.

I’ve discovered that the trick to really mastering this game in German is confidence and style.

There are three places in particular that I visit to play my little German speaking game: Kaiser’s grocery store, Rossmann drugstore, and at a café called Kaffeemitte. My goal, at first, was to memorize typical questions and responses. I would like a large coffee with milk to go, please. Ich möchte einen großen Milchkaffee zum Mitnehmen, bitte, or Ich hätte gern einen großen Milchkaffee zum Mitnehmen. Originally I started off with just einen Kaffee, bitte but that resulted in too many responses: With milk? To go? For here? What size?

Since I was making my first attempts at communicating, I always wanted to reduce the chance that the barrista would throw me a curve ball, like asking me if I wanted anything else. However, the more I practiced with TOTALe and around town, the more likely I was to be able to handle questions thrown my way. My explicit goal was always to see if I could get through the entire interaction without needing to speak English and without the vendor switching into English.

Once I turned it into a game it became fun and I always pumped my fist in personal triumph when I could “end scene” having spoken 100 percent German. It was a bonus if I got a smile from the shopkeeper. [Originally Posted on Rosetta Stone's "Language Journeys" blog as Have Fun with Your New Language!]

My friend Pam Teagarden had never blogged before or ever had a blog.  Well, now Pamela has a popular blog with over 2,000 subscribers in the form of In the Ladies Room you should check out.  Well, I am a devoted subscriber myself (yes, I am comfortable being address as ” Okay, ladies”) and actually posted a comment this morning that I would like to share in response to the latest post, War of Words: No Sticks.  No Stones.  But, will words hurt us?:

George, one thing I noticed about your mention of goldfish poop is that it is power-based and not gender-based, at least the way you said it. It was based on who trailed or followed and not what gender that person is. Today, it is often not a wife who follows but a husband, at least in the expatriate world I enjoyed in Berlin.

That said, the gender wars were perceived power based as well, so maybe this is the same stuff seen through a PC filter or just seens elsewise.

I know my friend David might have felt like goldfish poop when he moved to Jakarta for his wife for a DC-based intermational development company, but someone is always going to feel threatened or afraid.

I know one thing: if your spouse or partner thinks of you as the goldfish poop, you have bigger fish to fry than hurtful words, you have a resentful and hateful partner, for a start. You might even need to look in the mirror yourself to see how much of a rug you have become: ARE you goldfish poop? Have you become the trailing spouse? Are you a victim?

I thought I would share George’s comment here:

Currently I am engaged in several discussions about word usage, one being a long debate about how to call accompanying partners in expatriation assignments. Accompanying spouse, trailing spouse, spousal companion etc., all have their advocates. One contributor to the discussion noted that in Japanese they are popularly and humorously referred to as “goldfish poop” referring to the feces that remain attached to the swimming goldfish for a while after defecation!

What the war of words is increasingly telling me is that we are descending into a bottomless pit of emotional righteousness beyond the point where subjectivity becomes the standard. Tolerance of course goes two ways, not giving, but also not taking offense and the latter feature seems generally forgotten. Bizarre in a society that can inflict terrible and deadly violence around the world with the claim of “being in the right.”

In France we argue a lot and generally part amicably. We also have a phrase, “enculer les mouches” which means wasting time with little stuff to the point that we fail to do the big stuff. Taking offense at words is little stuff, but connecting with people and exploring intentions and synergies is the big stuff. Sometimes discussing words can take us there, but political correctness as a hammer does little to take us there whether it comes from the right or the left.

And finally, here’s Pamela Teagarden’s post, War of Words:

No Sticks.  No Stones.  But, will words hurt us?

Every time I write a blog post, I read it several times to insure that I am not speaking too much like a victim, too aggressively toward men or in any way that seems exclusive.  [I try.  I do!]

I really, truly don’t think this is an ‘us-versus-them’ kind of thing.  I have heard from a bunch of men about how great they think this blog is, for goodness sake!

While the language is getting better, there are still things that get on my nerves.  Sometimes I see things that feel destructive.

On television news programs (in the US), you’ll see segments titled “Gender Wars” [I won't name stations], and I have seen magazine articles that suggest a “Battle for the Boardroom”.  In my line of work, I see a lot of coaching or training initiatives to “up-skill women in sales and negotiations” [boy, THAT one really irks me!!!].

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have a sense of humor.  When I play games with friends, we will get into a ‘battle of the sexes’ just to laugh at both sides.  No worries there.  And, I do like it when the ladies are victorious!

Am I being picky here?  Or,

Ladies,
Do we need to watch our language?

I am a feminist. I studied postmodern feminist theory at Uni and felt confident that the progress and passion behind feminism offered by deconstructionism — the cultural and linguistic tools a women would need to redefine her story and her self — would result in a female self-empowerment much more substantial than the hyper-sexual self-objectification of Manolo Blahnik feminism. I am not the only one asking the question, “What Ever Happened to Feminism?” Check out Body Politic by Ingrid Sischy from the T Style Magazine (yes, I read it).

“Body Politic
By INGRID SISCHY
Published: February 25, 2007Last fall I was stopped in my tracks as I walked into a show in Milan during the collections, and a male friend, who’d just witnessed the same debacle that I had, raised his eyebrows and asked, “What happened to feminism???? It’s a question that is being asked repeatedly these days, and for good reason. The only word for the fashion collection we’d just seen was “bimbo??? — clothes put out on the runway without irony, without quotation marks, without any raison d’être other than saving money on material. Over the course of the next two weeks I gave myself a little assignment. I’d watch the runways in Milan and Paris and check off those clothes that signified a throwback to the long past of objectifying women. And on the other hand I’d put a little star down when the designer seemed to be wanting to take us into the future with a view of women that reflected self-possession.

Good thing I still like swings. Of course there were exceptions, designers who were true to the present, but by and large it was backward and forward and backward and forward. Then there were the designers who left earth entirely and showed a universe of female droids and cyborgs. These were the ones who, intentionally or not, illuminated the big challenge facing women’s fashion, best described by tweaking the famous tag line from “Star Trek???: women’s fashion, the final frontier . . . to boldly go where no one has gone before.

That’s easier said than done. As Miuccia Prada said to me, “The problem with new ideas about feminism is that there has been so little public discussion of the subject.??? Well, that’s changing, big time — if not in fashion at least in the art world, which has historically been the first place where a new perspective begins. In fact, after it seemed as though the subject of feminism had been put on simmer, the art world is cooking with gas again, not just for a new generation of feminist artists but in retrospect too. The year started out with a symposium at the Museum of Modern Art, once such a perfect target for feminist critics, who felt it was stuck in the Stone Age as far as the representation of women goes. Now there are bicoastal extravaganzas planned for this spring: the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles will stage “WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution??? from March 4 to July 16, and the Brooklyn Museum opens “Global Feminisms??? on March 23. The show celebrates a new center for feminist art, anchored by the permanent installation of Judy Chicago’s famous “The Dinner Party.??? How these exhibitions will loop back to fashion and the creative/commercial balancing act that designers have to do is anybody’s guess, but bets are that there will be a trickle-down effect, as there often is.

What’s interesting is that if one goes through the iconic works of the first, second and third waves of feminist writers, there is so little that actually addresses fashion. Rereading Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millet, Shulamith Firestone, Germaine Greer, Lucy Lippard, Linda Nochlin and so many others, I was struck by the dearth of attention to this subject, which after all has everything to do with how identity is constructed for the outside world. There’s no lack of thinking when it comes to inner life, working life, creative life and public life, but when fashion comes up, the attitude tends to be knee-jerk and programmatic. Take Greer’s climactic moment at the end of “The Female Eunuch,??? where she creates a sort of bill of rights, inciting women to: “. . . refuse hobbles and deformity and take possession of your body and glory in its power, accepting its own laws of loveliness.??? In fact some of the most powerful, liberated women I know choose to hobble around in the craziest skyscraper shoes. “The higher the heel,??? they say, “the better I feel.???

But the other part of Greer’s declaration — that women have the right to control their own bodies — is as resonant today as it was when she wrote it nearly 40 years ago. One can see that drama being played out in the fashion arena right now, with the debate over skinny models brought to a head by the deaths last fall of two South American catwalkers from complications of anorexia. The hysteria that resulted led to a spectacle of ignorance, hypocrisy and bureaucracy. If the issue weren’t so serious, some of the solutions proposed by bureaucrats — like models being weighed in like boxers or jockeys — would be funny. But unfortunately they don’t just infringe on everything that we are supposed to hold dear in the department of human liberties, they also display so little understanding of the disease they are trying to combat that it is frightening. So is the tendency to lump together girls who are naturally skinny with those who are sick, two very different realities. Hey, as someone who likes her fries, I’m all for bringing back a Rubenesque shape as the height of fashion, but the fact is that perceptions of beauty cannot, and will not, be dictated by laws. That’s where consciousness comes in. At the center of it all, for anorexics, but also for each of us, lies the issue of control, or as Barbara Kruger wrote in one of her most unforgettable artworks: “Your body is a battleground.??? Hopefully you win.”

Manolo Blahnik Feminism: The Right to Choo’s

I call the new feminism Manolo Blahnik Feminism, which is a super-sexual, super-sexy, and super-confusing form of self-empowerment. Ariel Levy calls it “raunch culture” and I believe that it is going to blow up in American women’s faces.

I believe very strongly that there are too many dangerous contradiction in the new feminism, in the new American woman.

I attended a panel on gender differences in the new feminism and my question to the panel was, “I understand how empowering strappy stilettos, butt jeans, bare bellies, and camisole tops are for the modern woman. It is all about taking back the sex, taking back the gaze, reclaiming the control of what is cute, what is hot, what is sexy, it about taking back control, reclaiming feelings of pride in the body, pride in the shape and tan earned from an active, outdoorsy life. That’s all fine and good. Unfortunately, we men never got the memo. I never got the memo.”

In fact, I feel sort of like a fox in a hen house. Why? Well, all of my old-world, unenlightened, seduction techniques work now better than ever! In fact, the truth is, I am really too nice for the Manolo Blahnik k feminist.

The Manolo Blahnik feminist wants to be taken, wants to find a real man, wants to take risks and have a great time; she pursues a doctrine of devil may care.

Well, no matter what the Manolo Blahnik Feminist thinks she wants and no matter what she thinks she’s doing, she is actually walking into a very dangerous trap.

We men are not responding to this self-empowerment with amazement and respect, we’re responding to it by licking our lips, by taking advantage, by rubbing our hands together, and by trying not to jinx this out of being. We are pretty well convinced that what is happening won’t last: the Manolo Blahnik feminist fancies herself the aggressor, the buyer, the pursuer, the seducer. And we men are what she is after.

All we see is, “man that girl is fine — I’d like some of that.”

As men in such a seller’s market, we don’t have to choose. We can date another willing girl every night. We can push sex much faster than we ever could believe. The three-date rule? Ha! That’s the official rule, but now the first date counts from the night we first met. Oral sex on the first date has sort of become de rigueur — if you want a second date.

Instead of getting control, the Manolo Blahnik Feminist has relinquished control to us men.

And even worse, this is a very dangerous game. We men are bigger, stronger, and not all of us are so nice. I personally have a lot of experience with women who are survivors — survivors not just of dating or their 20s, but survivors of sexual abuse and rape.

I have loved them, I have befriended them, and I worked through relationships with women who have survived sexual abuse and rape.

Its always an ugly story and the world is never the same. We just have not received the memo. This kind of exciting, naughty, passionate, irresponsible, reckless indulgence in “raunch culture” is going to result in one hell of a cultural hangover.

Many women will be unable to recover from this self-indulgence with any semblance of faith, trust, hope, or intactness.

And many men, too.

When it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?

Not I.

I am not sure if modern women have it very good. Not nearly as good as would be expected. I attended college at a high point for feminism an academia, when a woman would still identify with being a feminist.

Not any more.

Not Liberating, After All
How did feminists end up in bed with Hugh Hefner?

BY WENDY SHALIT
Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ariel Levy attended Wesleyan University in the 1990s, and she doesn’t feel the better for it. It was a place where “group sex, to say nothing of casual sex, was de rigueur.” It was a place where they had “coed showers, on principle.” When Ms. Levy suggested to a department head that it would be nice to have at least one course in the traditional literary canon, she was dismissed with icy contempt. Yet elsewhere on campus a professor of the humanities taught a course on pornography featuring, um, detailed textual analysis.

It was all supposed to be so liberating. But it wasn’t, as Ms. Levy argues forcefully in “Female Chauvinist Pigs.” It was merely the academic groundwork for what she calls “raunch culture,” now so ubiquitous that we take it for granted. Young women wear shirts emblazoned with “Porn Star” across the chest. Teen stores sell “Cat in the Hat” thong underwear. Parents treat their daughters’ friends to “cardio striptease” classes for birthday parties. This is liberation?

Ms. Levy is baffled. “Why,” she wondered, “is laboring to look like Pamela Anderson empowering?” Why did female Olympic athletes pose for Playboy before the summer 2004 Games? Why did Katie Couric feel the need to point to her cleavage and gush “these are actually real!” when she guest-hosted “The Tonight Show” a couple of years ago?

Some sort of pervasive pressure, apparently, requires “everyone who is sexually liberated . . . to be imitating strippers and porn stars.” Ms. Levy describes the perfect distillation of this impulse–a social group called CAKE that hosts steamy, hooking-up parties in New York and London. CAKE makes big bucks advertising “feminism in action”–it claims to be the place where “sexual equality and feminism finally meet”–but its events are indistinguishable from those held at the Playboy Mansion.

The surface logic of such conduct is fairly simple, notes Ms. Levy. “Women had come so far,” or so the thinking went, that “we no longer needed to worry about objectification or misogyny.” If male chauvinist pigs “regarded women as pieces of meat, we would outdo them and be Female Chauvinist Pigs: women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves.”

Well, Ms. Levy is having none of it, and she is not the only one. Even Erica Jong seems to feel that something has gone wrong. Known for popularizing the idea that a woman may want consequence-free sex, Ms. Jong today declares: “Being able to have an orgasm with a man you don’t love . . . that is not liberation.” It isn’t? Someone should tell this to Annie, a blue-eyed 29-year-old who admits to Ms. Levy that she “used to get so hurt” after a night of sex that didn’t yield an emotional bond. Now she has gotten over it, or tried to: “I’m like a guy,” she brags.

How did this happen? Why did feminism sell its soul to the sexual-liberation movement in the first place? After all, the original feminists were fighting to be taken seriously. Hugh Hefner, by contrast, said that his ideal girl “resembles a bunny . . . vivacious, jumping–sexy.” There seems to be a contradiction here.

Ms. Levy’s answer is that, after a brief and failed fight against pornography, feminism joined forces with Hef & Co. to fight for abortion rights. This is a plausible explanation, as far as it goes. Abortion has indeed assumed a primary importance in both feminist “rights” thinking and in the whole culture of soft-core libertinism: Mr. Hefner is a big fan of abortion, for obvious reasons.

But something else may be going on. Feminism grounded itself, in its early days, in the idea that there were no differences between the sexes. A girl wanting to keep her virginity was bad, for sexual reticence amounted to asserting a separate standard, a Victorian one at that. To Hef, modesty was a “hang-up,” and to the feminists it was a “patriarchal construct.” Ms. Levy believes that feminism was on the right track but then veered off-course: “What has moved into feminism’s place . . . is an almost opposite style, attitude, and set of principles.”

But maybe feminism’s foundations were weak from the start. Everyone in Ms. Levy’s book–whether it’s middle-class girls who feel anxiety about appearing “hot” or grown women who confess to Ms. Levy that “accumulating sex for its own sake . . . is not that sexual”–shows that a woman’s experience of sex and love is very different from that of an adolescent boy or a man. Indeed, the more a woman imitates a man, the clearer these differences become.

Paris Hilton tells Rolling Stone: “My boyfriends always tell me I’m not sexual. Sexy, but not sexual.” (Ms. Levy reports that on one of the infamous videotapes she takes a cellphone call during intercourse.) Plainly, the sexual revolution has not brought fulfillment for women. Even its mascots experience boredom, and for the civilians there is distress and heartache.

It may be that, like Ms. Levy, a lot of feminists now regret getting in bed with Mr. Hefner. Yet if you mention the word “modesty” within 20 feet of them their heads spin around like Linda Blair in “The Exorcist.” This is where they get stuck. Only if feminism can embrace the more traditional ways that men and women have courted throughout the ages can it have anything practical to offer young women. To the extent that feminists dismiss as worthless anything that is perceived as “backtracking,” they only help to perpetuate the “raunch culture”–even as they deplore its effects.

Take a beach scene that Ms. Levy recounts, when the male “friends” of two girls pressure them to take off their suits. Soon surrounded by a circle of 40 screaming men, the girls say “no way!” but eventually give in and spank each other to appease the crowd.

Such a girl requires, in addition to perhaps Mace, a compelling alternative to the Female Chauvinist Pig. Otherwise she may well give in to social pressure–not to mention professorial nonsense–and then wonder what’s wrong with her when she is not happy with the pig in her bed or the pig she has become.

Ms. Shalit is author of “A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue.” You can buy “Female Chauvinist Pigs” from the OpinionJournal bookstore.

September 20, 2005

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?ex=1127966400&en=3f7348e314a603ee&ei=5070&emc=eta1

By LOUISE STORY

Cynthia Liu is precisely the kind of high achiever Yale wants: smart (1510 SAT), disciplined (4.0 grade point average), competitive (finalist in Texas oratory competition), musical (pianist), athletic (runner) and altruistic (hospital volunteer). And at the start of her sophomore year at Yale, Ms. Liu is full of ambition, planning to go to law school.

So will she join the long tradition of famous Ivy League graduates? Not likely. By the time she is 30, this accomplished 19-year-old expects to be a stay-at-home mom.

“My mother’s always told me you can’t be the best career woman and the best mother at the same time,” Ms. Liu said matter-of-factly. “You always have to choose one over the other.”

At Yale and other top colleges, women are being groomed to take their place in an ever more diverse professional elite. It is almost taken for granted that, just as they make up half the students at these institutions, they will move into leadership roles on an equal basis with their male classmates.

There is just one problem with this scenario: many of these women say that is not what they want.

Many women at the nation’s most elite colleges say they have already decided that they will put aside their careers in favor of raising children. Though some of these students are not planning to have children and some hope to have a family and work full time, many others, like Ms. Liu, say they will happily play a traditional female role, with motherhood their main commitment.

Much attention has been focused on career women who leave the work force to rear children. What seems to be changing is that while many women in college two or three decades ago expected to have full-time careers, their daughters, while still in college, say they have already decided to suspend or end their careers when they have children.

“At the height of the women’s movement and shortly thereafter, women were much more firm in their expectation that they could somehow combine full-time work with child rearing,” said Cynthia E. Russett, a professor of American history who has taught at Yale since 1967. “The women today are, in effect, turning realistic.”

Dr. Russett is among more than a dozen faculty members and administrators at the most exclusive institutions who have been on campus for decades and who said in interviews that they had noticed the changing attitude.

Many students say staying home is not a shocking idea among their friends. Shannon Flynn, an 18-year-old from Guilford, Conn., who is a freshman at Harvard, says many of her girlfriends do not want to work full time.

“Most probably do feel like me, maybe even tending toward wanting to not work at all,” said Ms. Flynn, who plans to work part time after having children, though she is torn because she has worked so hard in school.

“Men really aren’t put in that position,” she said.

Uzezi Abugo, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who hopes to become a lawyer, says she, too, wants to be home with her children at least until they are in school.

“I’ve seen the difference between kids who did have their mother stay at home and kids who didn’t, and it’s kind of like an obvious difference when you look at it,” said Ms. Abugo, whose mother, a nurse, stayed home until Ms. Abugo was in first grade.

While the changing attitudes are difficult to quantify, the shift emerges repeatedly in interviews with Ivy League students, including 138 freshman and senior females at Yale who replied to e-mail questions sent to members of two residential colleges over the last school year.

The interviews found that 85 of the students, or roughly 60 percent, said that when they had children, they planned to cut back on work or stop working entirely. About half of those women said they planned to work part time, and about half wanted to stop work for at least a few years.

Two of the women interviewed said they expected their husbands to stay home with the children while they pursued their careers. Two others said either they or their husbands would stay home, depending on whose career was furthest along.

The women said that pursuing a rigorous college education was worth the time and money because it would help position them to work in meaningful part-time jobs when their children are young or to attain good jobs when their children leave home.

In recent years, elite colleges have emphasized the important roles they expect their alumni – both men and women – to play in society.

For example, earlier this month, Shirley M. Tilghman, the president of Princeton University, welcomed new freshmen, saying: “The goal of a Princeton education is to prepare young men and women to take up positions of leadership in the 21st century. Of course, the word ‘leadership’ conjures up images of presidents and C.E.O.’s, but I want to stress that my idea of a leader is much broader than that.”

She listed education, medicine and engineering as other areas where students could become leaders.

In an e-mail response to a question, Dr. Tilghman added: “There is nothing inconsistent with being a leader and a stay-at-home parent. Some women (and a handful of men) whom I have known who have done this have had a powerful impact on their communities.”

Yet the likelihood that so many young women plan to opt out of high-powered careers presents a conundrum.

“It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?” said Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard, who served as dean for coeducation in the late 1970′s and early 1980′s.

It is a complicated issue and one that most schools have not addressed. The women they are counting on to lead society are likely to marry men who will make enough money to give them a real choice about whether to be full-time mothers, unlike those women who must work out of economic necessity.

It is less than clear what universities should, or could, do about it. For one, a person’s expectations at age 18 are less than perfect predictors of their life choices 10 years later. And in any case, admissions officers are not likely to ask applicants whether they plan to become stay-at-home moms.

University officials said that success meant different things to different people and that universities were trying to broaden students’ minds, not simply prepare them for jobs.

“What does concern me,” said Peter Salovey, the dean of Yale College, “is that so few students seem to be able to think outside the box; so few students seem to be able to imagine a life for themselves that isn’t constructed along traditional gender roles.”

There is, of course, nothing new about women being more likely than men to stay home to rear children.

According to a 2000 survey of Yale alumni from the classes of 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994, conducted by the Yale Office of Institutional Research, more men from each of those classes than women said that work was their primary activity – a gap that was small among alumni in their 20′s but widened as women moved into their prime child-rearing years. Among the alumni surveyed who had reached their 40′s, only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men.

A 2005 study of comparable Yale alumni classes found that the pattern had not changed. Among the alumni who had reached their early 40′s, just over half said work was their primary activity, compared with 90 percent of the men. Among the women who had reached their late 40′s, some said they had returned to work, but the percentage of women working was still far behind the percentage of men.

A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30′s and 40′s.

What seems new is that while many of their mothers expected to have hard-charging careers, then scaled back their professional plans only after having children, the women of this generation expect their careers to take second place to child rearing.

“It never occurred to me,” Rebecca W. Bushnell, dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, said about working versus raising children. “Thirty years ago when I was heading out, I guess I was just taking it one step at a time.”

Dr. Bushnell said young women today, in contrast, are thinking and talking about part-time or flexible work options for when they have children. “People have a heightened awareness of trying to get the right balance between work and family.”

Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women’s plans to stay home with their children.

“A lot of the guys were like, ‘I think that’s really great,’ ” Ms. Currie said. “One of the guys was like, ‘I think that’s sexy.’ Staying at home with your children isn’t as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30′s now.”

For most of the young women who responded to e-mail questions, a major factor shaping their attitudes seemed to be their experience with their own mothers, about three out of five of whom did not work at all, took several years off or worked only part time.

“My stepmom’s very proud of my choice because it makes her feel more valuable,” said Kellie Zesch, a Texan who graduated from the University of North Carolina two years ago and who said that once she had children, she intended to stay home for at least five years and then consider working part time. “It justified it to her, that I don’t look down on her for not having a career.”

Similarly, students who are committed to full-time careers, without breaks, also cited their mothers as influences. Laura Sullivan, a sophomore at Yale who wants to be a lawyer, called her mother’s choice to work full time the “greatest gift.”

“She showed me what it meant to be an amazing mother and maintain a career,” Ms. Sullivan said.

Some of these women’s mothers, who said they did not think about these issues so early in their lives, said they were surprised to hear that their college-age daughters had already formed their plans.

Emily Lechner, one of Ms. Liu’s roommates, hopes to stay home a few years, then work part time as a lawyer once her children are in school.

Her mother, Carol, who once thought she would have a full-time career but gave it up when her children were born, was pleasantly surprised to hear that. “I do have this bias that the parents can do it best,” she said. “I see a lot of women in their 30′s who have full-time nannies, and I just question if their kids are getting the best.”

For many feminists, it may come as a shock to hear how unbothered many young women at the nation’s top schools are by the strictures of traditional roles.

“They are still thinking of this as a private issue; they’re accepting it,” said Laura Wexler, a professor of American studies and women’s and gender studies at Yale. “Women have been given full-time working career opportunities and encouragement with no social changes to support it.

“I really believed 25 years ago,” Dr. Wexler added, “that this would be solved by now.”

Angie Ku, another of Ms. Liu’s roommates who had a stay-at-home mom, talks nonchalantly about attending law or business school, having perhaps a 10-year career and then staying home with her children.

“Parents have such an influence on their children,” Ms. Ku said. “I want to have that influence. Me!”

She said she did not mind if that limited her career potential.

“I’ll have a career until I have two kids,” she said. “It doesn’t necessarily matter how far you get. It’s kind of like the experience: I have tried what I wanted to do.”

Ms. Ku added that she did not think it was a problem that women usually do most of the work raising kids.

“I accept things how they are,” she said. “I don’t mind the status quo. I don’t see why I have to go against it.”

After all, she added, those roles got her where she is.

“It worked so well for me,” she said, “and I don’t see in my life why it wouldn’t work.”

Thanks to Carrie for sending me this article.

My dear friend commented on this part of the article, “And when it comes right down to it, who would have any of the right stuff to even have faith in marriage, the family, and children after indulging in such self-destructive, self-loathing chaos?”

Her response was, “….Therein lies the pitfall…. Once you start tasting of that forbidden apple, the garden of romance can all too easily dissapear! This, i think, is why many parents of our generation divorced — lack of faith in love is a direct result of the “free love” movement. Someone needs to warn the young!!! They need to be made aware of the booby-traps. Otherwise we are all just walking around with broken flowers, feeling numb to the pain we don’t even realize we are entitled to have.”

A theory of where the word loo comes from, “favoured by many, refers to the trade name ‘Waterloo’, which appeared prominently displayed on the iron cisterns in many British outhouses during the early 20th century.” Via Ask Oxford.

From Ask Oxford, “There are several theories about the origin of this common term for a familiar article of sanitary furniture. The first, and most popular, is that it is derived from the cry of ‘gardyloo’ (from the French regardez l’eau ‘watch out for the water’) which was shouted by medieval servants as they emptied the chamber-pots out of the upstair windows into the street. This is historically problematic, since by the time the term ‘loo’ is recorded, the expression ‘gardyloo’ was long obsolete. A second theory is that the word derives from a polite use of the French term le lieu (‘the place’) as a euphemism. Unfortunately, documentary evidence to support this idea is lacking. A third theory, favoured by many, refers to the trade name ‘Waterloo’, which appeared prominently displayed on the iron cisterns in many British outhouses during the early 20th century. This is more credible in terms of dates, but corroborating evidence is still frustratingly hard to find. Various other picturesque theories also circulate, involving references to doors numbered ’00′ or people called ‘Looe’.”

I hate what corporatespeak does to perfectly gorgeous language. Stakeholder, for example, means, “a third party who temporarily holds money or property while its owner is still being determined;” unfortunately, some management git changed it to mean, “a person or organization that has a legitimate interest in a project or entity.” Now everyone is a stakeholder. Egad.

I am constantly reminded by top PR, advertising, and public affairs executives that in order to effectively deliver client message to the broadest cross-section of Americans, it is essential to write at a 7th grade reading level.

So, the next time you read a press release, watch an ad on TV, or listen to a political speech, remember that the simple sentences and basic vocab is painfully intentional for fear of alienating Americans. It is a bigger sin in PR, advertising, and politics to alienate Americans than it is to lie to them.

Be careful about your usage. Restive: “Impatient under restriction, delay, coercion, or opposition; resisting control; unwilling to go on; obstinate in refusing to move forward; stubborn.” Restful: “affording, marked by, or suggesting rest; tranquil; being at rest; quiet.”

“…there is no reason to think that all people will evaluate themselves as the equals of other people. Rather, they may seek to be recognized as superior to other people, possibly on the basis of true inner worth, but more likely out of an inflated and vain estimate of themselves. The desire to be recognized as superior to other people we will henceforth label with a new word with ancient Greek roots, megalothymia.” Via The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama page 182

“Attempts to win “the heart and mind” of the target. Thus persuasion must induce attitude change, which entails affective (emotion-based) change. Although persuasion is more difficult to induce, its effects last longer because the target actually accepts and internalizes the advocacy.” Via Working Psychology

“Persuasion is one of the four chief forms of rhetoric. Its main purpose is to convince a reader (or listener) to think, act, or feel a certain way. It involves appealing to reason, to emotion, and/or to a sense of ethics. The other three main rhetorical categories are exposition, narration, and description.” Via Glossary of Useful Terms

“Persuasion is discourse which seeks to change the reader’s mind. Persuasion usually assumes that the writer and the reader do not agree, or do not fully agree, at the outset. Persuasion may use logical argument (appeal to reason), but it may also try to win the reader over by other means—by appeal to the emotions, by wit, by geniality.” Via Terms to Know

“Persuasion attempts to win “the heart and mind” of the target. Thus persuasion must induce attitude change, which entails affective (emotion-based) change. Although persuasion is more difficult to induce, its effects last longer because the target actually accepts and internalizes the advocacy.

There are many persuasion tactics, one of which utilizes the Socratic Effect, studied by the famous influence researcher, William McGuire. It states that by merely directing thoughts to attitudes and beliefs with logical implications for one another, those attitudes and beliefs become more consistent.

If my wife wants me to start and maintain an exercise program, she might bring up other topics which have logical, positive implications for exercise. She might tell me about a friend who recently experienced a heart attack. That may lead to a discussion about the benefits of good health and the horrors of hospitals, and how people who are in good health are better looking, have more energy, and are more successful. Without ever pointing it out, my wife will have caused me to notice uncomfortable inconsistencies in my belief system. I don’t like hospitals, and exercise will help keep me out of them–so why don’t I go jogging with her? I will likely decide to do just that the next time I see her putting on her running shoes. At the next social gathering we attend, she may capitalize on the situation and mention that the two of us are now exercising together. I will agree, and in so doing will have made a public commitment–which will compel me to remain consistent with my stated behavior.

If my wife is an artful influence practitioner, my jogging will cease to be an external imposition–it will have become an internal value. As such, it will become part of my self concept and will become a long-term behavior pattern.

(Surprisingly, the correlation between attitude and behavior is weaker than you might think! So just because someone has a positive attitude does not mean they will invariably behave in a consistent manner. But that’s a discussion for another time . . .)” Via Working Psychology

“The correct form of this phrase has become so rare in the popular press that many readers have probably never noticed that it is actually two words. But if you want to avoid irritating traditionalists you’d better tell them that you feel ‘all right’ rather than ‘alright.’” Via Common Errors in English

“Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man.” Via Wikipedia and Wiktionary by way of Tristan Roy

Grok from Wikipedia

Grok (IPA /g??k/, rhymes with rock) is a verb that connotes knowledge greater than that which can be sensed by an outside observer. It is an understanding beyond empathy and intimacy. In grokking, one experiences the literal capabilities and frame of reference of the subject.

Robert A. Heinlein originally coined the term as part of a fictional Martian language in his 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, where it literally means “drink” and figuratively refers to the merging of essence that encompasses the theme of the book. The term has become part of the English language, attested in dictionaries and used most by certain counterculture groups and in hacker culture.

Pronunciation and part of speech
According to the Heinlein book, Martian words are “guttural” and “jarring.” Martian speech is described as sounding “like a bullfrog fighting a cat.” Accordingly, grok is generally pronounced as a guttural “gr” terminated by a sharp “k” with very little or no vowel sound (a narrow IPA transcription might be [g??k?]).

Both transitive and intransitive uses exist, but the latter is rare. Other forms of the word include “groks” (present third person singular), “grokked” (past participle) and “grokking” (present participle).

In Stranger in a Strange Land
The primary character of the book never tries to verbalize a full definition of grok, but demonstrates various instances and effects throughout the novel. A secondary, human character in the book defines the term as:

Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because we are from Earth) as color means to a blind man.
Within the book, the statement of divine immanence verbalized between the main characters, “Thou Art God”, is said to be derived from grok.

In counterculture
Tom Wolfe, in his book The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, describes a character’s thoughts during an acid trip: “He looks down, two bare legs, a torso rising up at him and like he is just noticing them for the first time… he has never seen any of this flesh before, this stranger. He groks over that….” Hippie guru Ram Dass, in Be Here Now, quotes a large passage from Stranger about the word. Also used in passing in The Illuminatus Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea

In science fiction
A popular t-shirt and bumper sticker slogan for Trekkies, seen as early as 1968, was I grok Spock (often showing the Star Trek character using the Vulcan salute). Other science fiction authors have borrowed the term over the years as an homage.

In hacker culture
The Jargon File, which describes itself as a “Hacker’s Dictionary,” puts grok in a programming context:

When you claim to ‘grok’ some knowledge or technique, you are asserting that you have not merely learned it in a detached instrumental way but that it has become part of you, part of your identity. For example, to say that you “know??? LISP is simply to assert that you can code in it if necessary — but to say you “grok??? LISP is to claim that you have deeply entered the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implication that it has transformed your view of programming. Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced as a single brief flash.
The entry existed in the very earliest forms of the Jargon File, dating from the early 1980s. A typical tech usage from the Linux Bible, 2005 characterizes the Unix software development philosophy as “one that can make your life lot simpler once you grok the idea”.

Mainstream usage
In their book The Fourth Turning, William Strauss and Neil Howe write of 1996 Presidential candidate Bob Dole as “not a person who could grok values in the now-dominant Boomer tongue”.

Grok from the Wiktionary

Etymology
From the supposed Martian word for to drink and, figuratively, “to drink in all available aspects of reality”, “to become one with the observed”, coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land.

Verb
to grok (third-person singular simple present groks, present participle grokking, simple past grokked, past participle grokked)

Infinitive
to grok
Third person singular
groks
Simple past
grokked
Past participle
grokked
Present participle
grokking

(transitive) (slang) To have an intuitive understanding of; to know (something) without having to think (such as knowing the number of objects in a collection without needing to count them).
(transitive) (slang) To fully and completely understand something in all its details and intricacies. He groks Perl.

Usage notes
Grok is used mainly by the geek subculture.

Do you want to read this blog in French, German, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Italian, or Portugues, it should be easy from now on thanks to TranslationMagic. Awesome! You have to get this for your site…

Apparently, card sharp and card shark mean two different thing, “A card sharp (as opposed to a card shark) is a person who purposely cheats at cards with the aim of making money,” versus “A card shark is an expert card game player who feasts on weaker ‘fish’ players.”

“Bush wants immigrants who become American citizens to ‘have a command of the English language’” and I demand that Americans in general have command of the English Language. Come on, people, we can’t be hypocrites in this. Via Drudge Retort.

Where I am from, it’s not junk in the trunk, its treasure.

Aujourd’hui. If I had to chose my favorite French word, it would have to be the French word for “today,” aujourd’hui.

“Schadenfreude is a German expression (from Schaden: damage, harm; and Freude: joy) meaning pleasure taken from someone else’s misfortune or shameful joy. The word is often capitalized, however since all German nouns (proper or common) are capitalized it should be possible to spell it lower case in English.” Via Wikipedia.

According to News.com, “The New Oxford American Dictionary of English has declared podcast the word of the year.” I just got some podcasting software and a geeky headset in order to see what kind of trouble I can get myself into. Via New Media Sense

Blogs are no longer just online personal diaries. Blogs and bloggers have become powerful influences in world culture. Blogs have uniquely been able to jump the rails into traditional media and bloggers are now routinely being quoted in the news and on television. This one-day class will explain why blogs have changed the balance of media power and how you can cheaply, easily, and powerfully take advantage of it. There has never been a time when it is so easy and possible to become part of a global conversation.…more

Blogs, Blogging, and the Blogosphere: Influence World Culture from the Comfort of Your Writing Room
Start Date: 4/11/2006
Meeting Day: Tuesday
Time: 7:00 PM to 9:30 PM
Instructor: CHRISTOPHER J ABRAHAM
Level: All Levels
Venue: Arlington Arts Center
Description: Blogs are no longer just online personal diaries. Blogs and bloggers have become powerful influences in world culture. Blogs have uniquely been able to jump the rails into traditional media and bloggers are now routinely being quoted in the news and on television. This one-day class will explain why blogs have changed the balance of media power and how you can cheaply, easily, and powerfully take advantage of it. There has never been a time when it is so easy and possible to become part of a global conversation.…more