Trying to figure out whether Cerberus would poop three times as much as one dog, or one-third as much as three dogs.

Theories?

If the Matrix was real and people could choose to take part in it, and could plug in and out of at will, what would you want to do in there that would be harder to do in the physical world because of consequences?

Say this was a Matrix in which anything you did in there would have no affect at all on your physical body (unlike in the movie). There would be so many possibilities. You could make things materialize before your eyes. If you were allergic to a specific food that you happen to love, you could eat as much of it as you want in the Matrix without having to worry. You could play extreme sports or do things like skydiving and get the same visceral rush without having to worry about danger--and it would be so much realer than a video game. It would be a safe but realistic place to learn how to drive. You could sleep with people with no worries about pregnancy or STDs (although if you're in a non-Matrix relationship and were having virtual sex with real people who were plugged into that world, I still think that would count as cheating. Actions carried out within the Matrix involving real people would still have tangible effects on relationships outside of it. Same is true for fighting with people, etc). You could also physically present yourself however you want, altering your appearance to fit your mood without having to spend money or get surgery. It would sort of make you like Tonks from Harry Potter. And you could travel anywhere without money or airfare. You might even be able to simulate time travel.

It would raise some pretty interesting questions for the legal system. Like if you punched someone in the face in the Matrix and left their virtual self injured, but didn't harm their non-Matrix self, would that count as assault? Same for things like destruction of virtual property.

The first thing I would want to do would be visit friends in different parts of the world, and simulate time travel to the early '90s and relive grunge music and the riot grrrl movement. Also skydiving, and making minor tweaks to my appearance. And I'd see if I could create things in that world that would still exist when I came back to it.

What about you? What would you do?

*Edit: I also posted this in a group I'm a part of, and someone compared it to lucid dreaming. I'm making a distinction between the two because lucid dreaming only exists in your own brain, whereas the Matrix is interactive.

The falsehood of "emasculation"

I wonder if the concept of psychological "emasculation" is, in itself, kind of a sexist idea. When people refer to a man being emasculated, they're usually alluding to him being undercut or browbeaten or belittled by a woman. But isn't that type of behavior generally inadvisable for anyone? People shouldn't behave that way toward others as an overall rule of courtesy. Why is it somehow "worse," to the point of earning its own classification, when a woman does it to a man? And why is that regarded as stripping him of whatever it is that makes him masculine--unless the assumption is that men should behave that way toward women, and so doing the reversal is acting upon an irreverence for social norms?

I'm not advocating for women to deliberately mistreat men as an act of protest against gender roles. I just think it's notable that a woman being a jerk to a man is seen as revoking his masculinity, whereas a man doing the same to a woman isn't judged as revoking her femininity or her identity as a woman. Yes, it's often frowned upon, but "effeminization" is not a commonplace word--unless it's used to insult men for "acting like women", because society deems femininity a negative trait. "Effeminization" is used as a synonym for emasculation, not a counterpart to it.

On the Cannonization of Suffering

One of the most commonly believed ideas that I would most like to see eradicated is the concept that putting up with another person's shitty behavior makes someone a "saint." I've believed this before, I've said it myself, and have heard it said by countless other people--and never once has it yielded a positive result. The principle behind it is damaging because to canonize suffering is to discourage people from standing up for themselves. It tells them that tolerating unacceptable behavior makes them a good person. It also elevates those who mistreat their peers by implying that they're somehow contributing to a greater good, to the character-building of their victims.

Additionally, not everyone who accepts terrible behavior from others is exempt from doing harm themselves. The world isn't solely made up of aggressors and targets; there can be overlap between the two. You can be aggressive in one relationship and passive in another. To ignore that is to overlook the complexities of our social lives and the contradictions that exist in people.

The 1996 Room

I just woke up from a dream about a restaurant in which the main room was ordinary, while the one beside it included all the same patrons--but from 20 years in the past. Both rooms were lined with mirrors. The mirrors in the main room showed the reflections from the past, while the past room showed their reflections from the future (or, rather, the present). Most of the waitstaff had to avoid the 1996 room, but a few servers who were trained in time travel could work in there.

I told Mike about this and said, "That just worries me. In that dream world, not only does a waitstaff position require a college degree, but the job description also demands you be proficient in time travel?"

He responded, "The application reads 'Must provide own Tardis.'"

Dammit dream world, please do your job. I go to you to find alternate realities, not more exaggerated versions of this one!

How I Know

When a woman or a person read as a woman discusses an experience of sexism, there’s usually someone who responds with “How do you know that happened because you’re a woman?” or “You’re just looking for things to complain about.”

To answer the first question, you don’t always know. And yes, there are times when somebody might jump at shadows or see misogyny where it isn’t. But when a person is that hyper-vigilant, it doesn’t come out of nowhere. It’s often because they have had so many negative experiences, and been in danger so many times, that they begin to interpret it everywhere. And there are ways to tell if somebody is behaving a certain way toward you just because you’re a woman. If you know the person, you start to observe patterns. If they behave noticeably differently toward men in social situations, then it’s reasonable to decide that gender is a factor. If it’s a stranger, and they are hitting on you in a very vulgar and aggressive manner, you can be ninety percent certain they would never talk to a man in the same way. For one thing, it would likely be dangerous. For another, they’re probably not attracted to men (although making vulgar gestures and graphic comments to someone is aggressive, not romantic). If they tell you to smile, and you respond by telling them the same, they usually get surprised and offended. You’re female! How dare you have the audacity to tell *them* to do anything? If they’re upset by receiving the same suggestion they gave you, delivered in the same tone, then it wasn’t made benevolently.

There’s a lot of talk about “Feminists are offended by everything. You can’t even open a door for a woman without her thinking it’s sexist.” That is largely a caricature. I’ve seen and received a lot of door-openings over the years, and never once have I witnessed a woman getting angry at a man for opening a door for her. I’m a feminist and having a man open a door for me has never angered me. I’ll tell you what I have experienced, though: There are times when I’ve returned the favor by opening the next door for a man—because I think everyone should open doors for others as a basic courtesy—and he has rolled his eyes, or sucked his teeth, or explicitly said, “I’m a big boy. I can get it myself.” This shows that while many men may open doors just to be polite, there are some who see it as demeaning. This relates back to telling women to smile: If somebody is upset by receiving the same behavior they exhibit toward others, then there is another motive. Also, the man who called me a “bitch” last month because I didn’t notice him trying to open the door for me went on to say he was opening the door because I’m “sexy.” If he didn’t see me as attractive, he wouldn’t have bothered. So yes, I can deduce that was because I’m a woman—specifically one he was trying to have sex with.

Believe me, I’m not looking for things to complain about. For one, I don’t have to bother searching. For another, if I deliberately sought out things to get offended over, I would be exhausted. If I spent all day furious about and terrified of being harassed, I would never be able to leave home. I try not to profile based on gender. I try not to make assumptions. But time and time again, when I pass a knot of young men out in public, I’m disappointed by obscene gestures and X-rated commentary about my body.

I don’t want to have to be wary, but experience has made me that way. It’s not just disappointing or offensive, it can also be scary. Sometimes there is an overt rape threat involved. If anybody wants to respond with “don’t flatter yourself,” then congratulations: You just demonstrated that you think sexual assault is flattering. But please, go on about how rape culture is all a paranoid myth.

The overlap of abuse

 (Warning for discussion of domestic abuse)
*
*
You often hear it said that someone can be a bad parent while remaining a good spouse, or vice versa. I think this really depends on the nature and degree of "bad." There are parents incapable of divided attention who dote on each other so much that they emotionally neglect their children. There are also parents who are aloof or unfaithful romantic partners but are incredibly dedicated to their kids. If abuse is involved, though, there is no possible way for a person to be adept at one role while failing the other. Abusing their partner's child is abusive to their partner by proxy, as is abusing their partner even if they don't extend the behavior to the kid. It shows the parent or child a complete disregard for the safety of someone so important to them (assuming that both parents aren't mistreating the child together). There's also an implicit threat of "you could be next"--even if it's never acted upon.