A man who was threatening bodily harm to students and faculty at American River College was arrested this week. He was apparently going to do something today.
Over the years I taught at American River, I usually taught on Fridays. I still teach at Sacramento City college, which had a shooting a few weeks ago.
Every day that I go to work, my life is in danger.
Students and teachers face an enormous threat right now. Preschoolers are more in danger from bullets than active duty police officers.
I’m tired of hearing that things would be better if there were more guns around.
You really want my students to be armed when I catch them cheating, when I give them an F, the F that might get them disenrolled from this university? The F that sometimes means deportation? The F that means no med school?
Some might say I should carry a gun.
A. I don’t want to.
B. I have poor depth perception.
C. Most mass shootings happen so fast that I’m likely to be gunned down way before I manage to find the hopefully secured gun that would be rattling around in my backpack (so unsafe; I would probably shoot myself in the ass).
D. If I see a student with a gun, I will not assume that student is armed to protect me from a shooter. I’ll assume the student is a shooter.
By this logic, I could then shoot the student and claim fear of bodily harm, right?
I could shoot the occasional stalker student, right?

I have never felt safer in the presence of a weapon.
When I was growing up, my mother was in abusive relationships with gun owners. Was I supposed to be happy these guys–one of whom threatened to kill me if she left him–had their constitutional right to terrorize us?
The hard facts are that I have always more danger than safety from a gun in a relative’s hand or in a student’s hand or in a co-worker’s hand.

I see people post things about how we protect the President, airports, etc. with guns.
The posts never mention two things:
A. We protect the President etc. with guns carried by people with extensive gun training, with a license to carry that weapon at work–a license that can be taken away–and with clean background checks and mental health records.
If everyone who carried a gun did so under those circumstances, I’d be fine.
B. Also, that asinine post doesn’t mention whom we’re protecting people from with those regulated guns–we’re protecting the President etc. from crazy people with guns.
Telling me that guns are fine because we use them for protection but conveniently forgetting that we need law enforcement to carry them because other people are coming to shoot the rest of us is a gross oversight.
A lot of days now, when I’m walking to campus, I’m not thinking about the lesson I’m about to do, my research project, the students I mentor, that one student who seems to need extra help, or even what I’m having for dinner after class. Instead, I’m thinking about how vulnerable I am.
Today, I’ll walk across campus four times.
I hope.

Here’s a series of short vignettes, most of which need (and deserve) no comment.

Man A messaged me, asking what I was doing over the weekend. He then asked for my number. I said I didn’t feel comfortable giving out my number that fast. A: “Okay. You take care. Adios.”

***

My profile says I’m looking for someone who is “liberal (especially socially), smart, sexy, secure in yourself, funny, appreciative of smart and funny women, and a nonsmoker. No long distance, please.”

Man B: Hi ! Everything said and done, how do I know if I am sexy or not !
This is precisely one question that bothered me while reading your profile details. And though I should not be messaging you because I smoke, still, I could not but ask this question. Again, how does one know if he/she is sexy?
I felt that you are not the type who defines sexiness simply by the amount of muscles or curves , hence felt like asking this . Thanks 🙂

Me: I’m sorry you were bothered by my request that a man be sexy. As you noted, there is no good way to define that clearly. However, that’s true for all of the other words I used. I want a man who’s smart, who’s funny, etc. Is there just one clear definition for those words? (I feel that they’re just as subjective as “sexy.”)

***

My profile also says I don’t want to get married or to live with someone.

Man C: I am a little curious about the partner thing. You are an attractive person but how come you aren’t looking to get married?

***

A guy messages me several months after a previous message: (Man D): If you’re still interested in getting to know one another, I’m interested. Although I see you as a great deal smarter than me, don’t know how we’d get on due to that.

[I’m trying to figure out if any woman would be allowed to say that, ever.]

***

Man E, whose profile said he was already “seeing someone,” messaged me with this: I’m job interviewing out of California, won’t be around much longer, so fuck it, have a little fun.

Straight men have lots of complaints about online dating. Number 1? Women don’t answer their winks or their messages.

Here’s why women don’t.

1. Guys don’t follow instructions. If a woman says she doesn’t want a long distance relationship, why would she answer you when you’re over 3000 miles away? If a woman says she wants kids and you don’t, why would she answer? If a girl says she won’t answer if you just say “hi” or if you haven’t actually filled out your profile, why would she answer a guy with no profile who just says “hi”? In short, answering is usually a huge waste of time.
2. Guys train us not to. I’ve been trying to be polite in this adventure–to answer all messages–even from the guys with no profile, the guys who just say hi, the smokers, the ones who have Jesus as part of every profile sentence, the guys in Germany, whatever. For the most part, this is a waste of time, but I do believe in politeness.

Now, in my answers, I don’t encourage these guys. Here’s what I tend to say, “Thanks for writing, but I don’t want a long distance relationship/don’t date smokers/do not describe myself as ‘God-fearing,’ which you said was essential in a partner/etc. I hope you find what you’re looking for.” Three whole guys have thanked me for answering and wished me well. Several have not answered back (this is just as okay as thanking me). However, the vast majority have had one of three responses:

A. Ignore what I said completely, just as they ignored what I said I was looking for in my profile. A recent response to my sorry-we’re-so-far-away-and-plus-you-said-the-only-book-you-read-is-the-Bible message: “Thank you for your response, i am happy to hear from you and knowing that you want us to communicate and learn more about each other. I also want you to know that you have a beautiful smile, I seek for a serious relationship, i have been divorced for 2years now, i have a son, [lots of information about his son and his business] I find your profile interesting and will like to learn more about you, please write me your email so that we can communicate more often.” This makes me never want to be polite again.

B. Argue with me about it, telling me that I should be open to long distance, or not picky about smoking, or learn about Jesus, or whatever. I don’t need my preferences questioned. I didn’t write you back and tell you to move, to quit smoking, to de-accept Jesus Christ, etc. I saw who you were and what you wanted, and it was clear we didn’t match. Your second email should not be a request that I change for you.

C. Insult me. Perhaps they tell me they didn’t really want to date a woman with a kid, that I’m arrogant, or, as one guy recently said, “I tend to like younger women anyway.” Again, this doesn’t make me want to be polite ever again.

One of the problems, of course, is that some guys get mad at you for being polite. I’m polite, both in answering at all and in what I say. For example, I don’t say I’m not interested because the guy seems insanely dumb or because he has values I find reprehensible or because she’s ugly, but all of those things are true sometimes. However, as mentioned above, I don’t want to give false encouragement, so I’m clear that I’m not interested. However, the fact that I answer at all is taken as encouragement by lots of guys. Thus, when I say, “Thanks for saying ‘hi,’ but your profile’s blank–perhaps you could fill it out?” they explain that they don’t want to but that I can ask them questions (I’ve written about this ridiculous proposition in a previous blog). When I tell them I don’t want to play 20 questions when they could just fill out the profile, they say, “Then why did you answer?”

Guys, you want us to answer; you hate it when we don’t. But then you give us so many reasons not to.

Online dating is like sex. If you ever want us to say yes, you have to be willing to accept the no too.

PS–There are two other explanations for women who don’t answer. Some sites have fake female profiles. Some women, especially attractive women in big cities, can get hundreds of messages a day. Sometimes they don’t even read your message. It’s not personal; it’s just a volume problem.

Went back on OKCupid today. I got a poorly written message almost immediately. I checked out this guy’s profile (which indicated that he would not allow a girlfriend to be friends with exes and said he believed jealousy was “healthy in a relationship.”) Of course, if he read through all of my profile, he would have seen that I explicitly state that I’m friends with my exes (these facts come out in the questions you answer on this site), and that I’m not going to end my friendships.
I’m not going to comment on this exchange–it speaks for itself.
Me: Hi, [. . .]. I read through your profile and the answers to your questions. I don’t think we’d be a good match–you are very clear that you’re not okay with women being friends with their exes, but I am, and I don’t want to enter a relationship that has jealousy.
I hope you find what you’re looking for.
Him: Thanks for checking. Although I believe there is always something to give up for progress.
Me: That’s very true. Perhaps you should take your own advice and give up being jealous! Most people would consider that progress.

I recently told someone I didn’t want a second date with him. He said I was probably a racist.

One of the hardest parts of dating is having to tell someone that you’re not interested. When faced with this dilemma, I chose the least offensive but still true reason to give. Lately, though, guys haven’t taken the no as gracefully as I’ve tried to give it. I’ve been called shallow, racist, and a liar–in each case, the guy is arguing that my reason isn’t real–that it’s a cover for some darker thing that reflects badly on me. I can certainly understand the sour grapes impulse, but it’s frustrating to not have politeness returned.
Haven’t they ever heard the phrase “just not that into you”?
They guy mentioned above had several strikes–I didn’t really enjoy our conversation, he said he would never go to a play (even though he’d never been to one), he plans to move away next year, and he’d managed to forget that I have a son. I gave him the penultimate reason–which is true–I’m looking for a long-term partner. He said I was full of bullshit and that I was probably just a racist.

(I’d have to be an incredible racist–it’s one thing to refuse to date someone of another race–it’s another to agree to a date just to get a member’s of that race’s hopes up so that the racist might better dash them.)

Recently, a friend forwarded a great article about why a woman doesn’t always write back during online dating. I could so relate. In honor of that, culled from many years, here’s why I don’t want a second date.

You didn’t make eye contact.
You never asked me anything about myself.
The one response to finding out what I did for a living was “good for you.”
You’re not funny.

You said “I love you.”
You were really late even though you admitted you had nothing else happening in your life that day.
You pressured me for sex.
You laughed like a donkey–and I made you laugh a lot.

I said I was a feminist and you asked why I hated men.
You seemed too contemptuous of other people–too negative.
You had obviously lied in your profile.
I had no desire to have you touch me.

I told you what I did for a living and you physically recoiled.
You smelled bad.
You said, “so, since you’re a single mother, people don’t plan on dating you for long, right?”
You admitted you’re uncomfortable with smart women.

I didn’t think it would bother me that you’re my father’s age, but it did.
You talked about money too much.
You had an obvious wedding ring tan.
I let you kiss me and you didn’t move your tongue at all and then explained that you always kissed people like that the first time because you’re testing what a woman might do with her tongue to another body part.

You seem to be jealous and possessive already.
You don’t like it when women talk about sex or when they use bad words.
You proposed.
You gave me $100 in a card.

I was bored.
I wasn’t ready, really, to be on a first date with anyone.
You assumed I was a spoiled-daddy’s girl (yes, you used those words) and thought it would turn me on when you talked about how you would spoil me.
You tried to touch me way before it was okay.
Everything was a double-entendre, but none of them were even clever.
I was more interested in someone else.
We had talked on the phone and you’d asked the “how’d you end up a single mom” question. You asked it again on the date and expressed equal surprise at the answer, like you’d never heard it before.
Your mouth is exactly the same as another person’s I used to date–it’s creepy.

I think I would have been more upset about Jon’s last show, but I lost my Jareth kitten, so I’m numb to other tragedy today. That said . . .

THE SIMPSONS: Springfield voters reject the leading candidates and embraced a write-in: Ralph Wiggum. Although no one knows for sure which political party Ralph is representing, he insists that everyone is invited to his party in the “E Pluribus Wiggum” episode of THE SIMPSONS Sunday, Jan. 6 (8:00-8:30 PM ET/PT) on FOX. (Pictured: guest voice Jon Stewart. THE SIMPSONS ª and ©2008TCFFC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

I have seen almost every Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I started watching when Craig hosted, though due to cable issues I wasn’t as faithful to him. Over these past many years, I think there are maybe 8 episodes of TDS with Jon I haven’t seen, mostly due to overseas travel.

Jon brought something that Craig didn’t–a decidedly political focus. When I think of Craig’s show, I remember laughing, I remember his 5 questions bit, I remember Olivia Newton John not getting the 5 questions right although they just wanted her to say “grease,” and I remember Bill Murray singing some lyrics for the theme song. There’s more to remember about Jon because his show was more meaningful.

You all know what I’m going to say: More people got their news from Jon than from anywhere else. Their coverage won 7 Peabody Awards and an Orwell. The show launched the careers of some of our best comedians.

The last episode featured many, many correspondents (and his crew)–as it should. It was their show, too, and Jon made sure their voices were heard. Many have talked about how Jon made them better writers–that they learned to write for a purpose, for an audience, and with concision in mind–in addition to being funny.

Jon allowed them to play and to ridicule him. His brand of comedy was unique, in fact, because while the show was often satirical, the true satire was always in the hands of his correspondents. That is, satire plays on a level of meaning–it’s possible to misunderstand it. It depends on a naive narrator. Stephen Colbert’s show was all satire because Stephen was in character (and many did somehow miss that he was). While Jon sometimes used sarcasm for comic effect, he was sincere. He was angry at the VA, at those who fought to screw over first responders, etc. It wasn’t an act.

Those of us of a certain age will always remember Jon’s first show after 9/11 and the strength of his words.

When I teach satire, the segments of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart I use come from the correspondents, since they can’t come from the straight man that is Stewart (like this one).

Here’s what I’ll most miss. Jon’s honesty. His laugh. His using opponents’ words against them (by simply showing them saying the thing they said they didn’t say, etc.) The way he made the other side go crazy. If he were just a clown, they never would have had to mention him. But they did–they tried to take him down as if he were a serious newsman, as if he were a powerful political player.

And that made sure he was both.

(Maybe that’s why they decided to do their first debate after he was gone.)

A brief story, from several weeks ago:
A man “met” me online. He never actually asked me out, but he would ask how my day was, what my plans were for the weekend, etc. I would tell him what I did that day, what I was going to do (grade, see friends, etc).
At one point, he wrote, “You seem pretty busy. Too busy for a new man in your life. 🙁 ”
[That sounded a little whiny.]
Me: Well, I am a busy person–I don’t sit around twiddling my thumbs. But when someone asks me out, I make the time to see him. I’ve been able to make time for a few dates this week, in fact.
Him: WOW. THANKS FOR THE TMI.

That was his last message.

So you meet a woman on a dating site, but then you get offended that she’s dating?
Wow. Thanks for the heads-up that you’re insecure!

My OKCupid profile is down for a little while. I suffer sometimes from OKCupid fatigue–this is one of those times.
That’s not to say I’m not going on dates.
What have I learned in my short time revisiting online dating?
1. Men care about pictures more than anything else. When I was revising my page, for a few hours, I just had pictures up. I got hundreds of “likes” and several messages when the only info there was my face.
2. Some men think women only care about the picture. As I’ve mentioned before, one of the benefits of OKCupid is that people can answer a bunch of questions and they can put together an appealing profile if they’re willing to put in a modicum of effort. However, many men will post one picture and then message with a boring “hi.” (For some reason, all of those men in this cycle have been Indian.) I have told a few of these men that we need a little more to go on. One man said he didn’t want to fill in his profile because he was hoping for “love at first sight.” Sigh.
3. The vast majority of men think “women have an obligation to keep their legs shaved.” Yes, that’s a question people can answer. I can understand if men said they would prefer for their girlfriend to be shaved, but believing that all women have that “obligation” is irritating.
4. Either men can’t read or they’re liars. One explanation for the problem in #3 is that men mean to signal a personal preference for their partner and that they don’t really read closely. I’ve had several guys who are tagged as bad matches–men who click yes on “I’m looking for a partner to have children with”–say things like “LOL. Did I say that? I’m still trying to figure out this app” when I ask about it. Um, either you don’t understand the difference between saying yes and no OR you are one of those guys who wants to lie to me (maybe hoping that you’ll be that one guy who changes my mind) OR you checked yes to lie to the women who *do* want that quality in a guy. Either way: red flag.
5. I’m tired of married men looking to cheat with me.
6. The vast majority of men are not bothered by spelling mistakes and would date someone who was messy or ditzy. Many would be fine dating a woman who had a strong negative opinion towards a particular race. Most say “the world would be better if stupid people weren’t allowed to breed.” Almost no one knows what “wherefore” means in R&J. Yes–these are all questions.
7. I would be dead if I’d ever played a drinking game with “LOL,” even if the rule was that I only had to drink when LOL accompanied an objectively nonfunny line. I’ve had to stop talking to several guys who use it at both the beginning and ends of perfectly serious sentences. “Have a good weekend. LOL.” “LOL. Maybe we should get a drink. LOL. How’s Saturday?”
8. Men get frustrated by my unwillingness to “chat.” I treat OKCupid like email before smartphones.* A few times a day, I go check my messages. I’ve had to turn off the chat feature because I wouldn’t actually be able to check messages if I were engaged in all the chatting people want to do. Many men then want to turn regular messaging into chats–when I log on, they say “good morning” & want me to answer–and keep answering–right away all day.
Usually I have about eight new messages when I log in in the morning–one or two from brand new people and several from guys I’ve been trading my apparently infrequent messages with. It’s all I can do to answer those messages and then get ready for work–I just can’t be starting eight involved conversations that are going to go on for a while.
I don’t know the guy point of view here–if they’re dealing with fewer people at any given time or whatever. I do know that the guys all seem to have OKCupid as an app on their phones–which thus notifies them the second they get a message–but I would find that to be a huge time sick [suck] and vaguely oppressive somehow (since I don’t do regular email that way).
I think the bottom line for me is that I want a few messages to see that you’re interested and that you don’t overtly suck. Then we should have a date. If it goes well, that’s when I’ll want to let you take up a lot of my time.
9. Many guys who’ve become friends with me in other social spaces, like Facebook, have expressed concern that they’ll end up in this blog. I’ve explained that only the most egregious cases end up here. I must also admit that I could certainly end up in other people’s blogs if they were writing. What’s up with that woman who won’t chat? What’s up with that woman who thinks the “Wherefore” question is important? One guy could tell a story about how I threw up on a date recently–thanks, ongoing medical mystery that is my body!
10. I’ll leave you with a ridiculous conversation with a guy who was never going to get a date with me. He started with “hi.” He’s my son’s age. His whole profile is about fishing. Turning him down was easy:
Me: It doesn’t look like we have anything in common. I hope you find what you’re looking for–have a great day.
Him: We don’t, but maybe we could be friends with benefits.
Me: I have friends for that. I’m looking for a partner.
Him: Well then maybe you could help me out–I don’t have that.
Me: My friends are actually my friends–whether I’m currently sleeping with them or not. You aren’t my friend–you’re a stranger. I’m not looking for a stranger to have sex with, as my profile makes clear.

(It should be noted, of course, that there were several hours between each exchange since I’m difficult.)

* I had to add the words “before smartphones” because it occurs to me that most of my readers treat regular email differently than I do, since I don’t work on my phone.

One of the new pics I had posted.

No.
It seems like every time I turn on the computer, someone is arguing that The Simpsons “predicted” something or other. Most recently, people are pointing to an episode (“Brother’s Little Helper”), in which the Cardinals spy on people. This is being sold as evidence that The Simpsons has some kind of predictive power.

The MLB satellite

Of course, in that episode, Major League Baseball is spying on all of us–a Cardinal player (Mark McGwire) is just the representative shown. In that case, The Simpsons predicted McGwire’s cheating and every other baseball related scandal too.

Sigh.

One of the more annoying articles about this came last year, when people “discovered” that The Simpsons made an Ebola joke in 1997. This was evidence, apparently, that The Simpsons knew there would be an Ebola outbreak in 2014, rather than being evidence that The Simpsons made a joke about an earlier outbreak (which is why we all got the joke in 1997).

I’m tired of it. The Simpsons writers are brilliant; they’re great at tapping into the zeitgeist. And, with 26 seasons of episodes, there’s bound to be a lot of overlap between the fictional and the real.
However, we need to stop jumping to conclusions that any of this is intentional, especially without doing some research first.

For example, some of my students watching “Duffless” thought an ad for Duff Beer was a parody of Red Bull ads. The Duff Beer ad was created way before the Red Bull ones, so it would be more logical to assume that Red Bull owes The Simpsons some money. However, both ads are playing off of old-fashioned ads for cigarettes.

Duffless Ad

It’s tempting to see things and to try to create a pattern. I did it years ago when I noticed that three Simpsons episodes about spiritual quests feature the song “Short Shorts” (“The Mysterious Voyage of Homer,” “She of Little Faith,” and “Homer the Heretic”).

Homer the Heretic

She of Little Faith

The Mysterious Voyage of Homer

Thus, I did what any Simpsons’ scholar would–I asked someone on the show. Chris Ledesma, music editor extraordinaire, took my question to the writer/producers. They were floored by the coincidence. They were also floored that nerds like me are paying that much attention.

I would still like to believe that the show has a subtle message: To achieve enlightenment, wear skimpier clothes.

All that said, I’m surprised I haven’t been bombarded by articles about something The Simpsons may actually have anticipated.

Remember back to a few years ago, when bacon with chocolate was new? When it seemed odd, but you decided to try it?

In 2003, Homer Simpson commands God (through prayer) to come up with a new taste sensation–a new snack. Homer’s prayer then inadvertently (or advertently–God works in mysterious ways) causes an accident between a bacon truck and a fudge truck.

Homer thinks it’s awesome.

So do I.

Coincidence?

That’s bacon covered fudge flying to him!