zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Diddums)
In more-or-less breaking news, twelve people in New Zealand have agreed that stabbing someone 216 times counts as murder, not manslaughter. (Note for those unfamiliar with the case: the text in that article is ambiguous on the subject, but there's in fact no evidence whatsoever that the victim ever attacked the murderer with those scissors.)

So after doing a little cheer (because it was just nauseating to see that guy in national news justifying his actions by claiming that his victim was "controlling" and a "bitch" and a "slut" and that Google proved she had a personality disorder etc) -- and then doing a big cheer -- I started pondering that old adage.

Innocent until proven guilty.

This is a good adage with good reasons for it. If you start out assuming guilt, the defendant won't get a fair trial, and that's not good; not to mention the potential social stigma.

But and however. This works just fine for 'victimless' crimes; but it fails horribly when the crime is against a victim. Because in that case, to assume that the defendant is innocent requires assuming that the alleged victim is lying, deluded, or somehow otherwise to blame for the alleged crime.

In other words, assuming that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty frequently entails assuming that the victim is guilty until proven innocent. Victim-blaming isn't just a side-effect of our justice system; it's what the system is *built* on.

This is broken. If we hold the principle that we may not believe without proof that the defendant's alleged actions justify a jailterm, then to believe without proof that the victim's alleged actions justify having a banjo stuffed down his throat is nothing but hypocrisy. A truly fair system should assume that the victim, just as much as the defendant, is innocent.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
I wasn't going to link to this incredible post "On Rape and Men (Oh yes, I'm going there)" because of... something I didn't understand well enough to judge whether or not I should step carefully. Later because... well, as of this moment, it's got 1684 comments and:

a) amazing as so many of them are, who's going to read through all those unless they've been having them appear in their inbox 200 at a time over the last several days?

b) the poor author deserves a rest from her moderating!

But you should totally read the post. I hereby give you permission to read only some of the comments. :-)

This is a preamble because someone asked me to repost one of my comments, with context, so he could link it elsewhere. And so:

Context:
Someone had asked, "So you would consider a man part of the problem if he treats women with respect and equality, and would never participate in sexist remarks, but does not call out other men when they do?"

My comment:
To paraphrase: All it takes for injustice to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Silence tends to be taken as assent. So if one man makes sexist remarks, and five men stand around and let him, then:

a) the women present will feel as if all six men approve of that sexism;

b) the man speaking will believe he has been given tacit approval to keep on speaking;

c) each of the five men will believe that the other four have given tacit approval to those sexist remarks;

d) each of the five men will have reinforced in his own mind that the appropriate thing to do in this situation is to be silent. (This is because, when we make a choice to do X, we reinforce our approval for X. eg If you choose to buy something, you'll like the thing more after you've bought it than before.)

Silence reinforces the problem. Therefore it's a (passive) part of the problem.

Further pondering:
I was discussing the general topic with a friend at lunch, and a couple of the many powerful stories from the comments. Particularly one where a creepy man was being *seriously* creepy to a teenage girl in a train full of people in a way no-one could possibly not notice -- and no-one did a thing to stop him (until finally the train stopped in a station where someone on the platform noticed, came in, and pulled the creep back out). My friend was astounded that no-one had done anything, until I talked about how people do just go along with the crowd. Even if the fire alarm's going, if no-one else reacts, you don't either. At which she remembered a local case some years ago where a white person was beating up a PoC and a crowd was just watching and watching and watching until finally one man broke out of that mob-induced stupor and stepped in; then others helped, but it took all that time.

And... the thing is that once a mob of do-nothings has formed, it will be hard for people to do something. So we need to put in the effort to teach ourselves and teach our friends and teach our families that as soon as you see something icky going on, you step in that *instant*, so that the mob of do-nothings never has time to form in the first place. We need the stepping in to be practically instinctual.

We also need to teach ourselves and our friends and our families what "icky" is. "Icky" includes rape but you're not likely to see the actual rape, only the stuff leading up to it and enabling it. So "icky" also includes-but-is-not-limited-to physical intimidation, and verbal intimidation, and emotional blackmail, and victim blaming, and disbelieving women's experiences, and sexist remarks, and gendered language, and all that crap. We need to know that it's all icky, and we need to learn to recognise it when it happens, and we need to step up and make sure other people know it's not cool too.

[A note on comments: In homage to cereta I'm leaving comments open and unscreened. However, ickiness as defined above is strictly forbidden. Icky comments will be frozen or deleted at my discretion, and offenders will be sentenced to read all 1692 comments on cereta's post. This is to be a safe space for women and other rape survivors.]
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
(Please read this in a friendly, patient, non-accusatory tone, even when I go for the hyperbole. Because I totally get where people are coming from; I just want to explain where other people are coming from.)

(Warning: the following analogy is not perfect. If it was it wouldn't be an analogy, it'd be a description. Also, the point of an analogy is to ponder similarities, not to argue about differences, because if the differences were the important part then I'd have chosen an analogy where the differences were similarities instead. If that makes sense.)


So say you're on your cellphone chatting to someone else on her cellphone, and suddenly she exclaims,

"Shit! God, that was a close one -- bloody incompetent idiots -- dammit, I thought I was safe in here! Why do people keep putting anvils up on thin shelves that break and drop the things on my shoulder? The bone's barely healed from last time! Fuck, I'm sick of these bloody anvils!"

Do you:

a) Get angry at her for saying rude words?

b) Tell her she doesn't know that *this particular* anvil would hurt her shoulder unless she lets it fall onto her shoulder so she should let it drop onto her shoulder in order to get the experience necessarily to justly criticise it?

c) Point out that the function of an anvil is to be heavy, not to guard her against injury?

d) Reassure her that you've just donated money to a charity that specialises in healing shoulder injuries?

e) Argue that there's nothing wrong with putting anvils on shelves, because strong shelves can support an anvil perfectly well and it's a perfectly interesting idea to store anvils on shelves?

f) Get angry that she's accusing people of trying to assassinate her?

g) Express your fascination with her description of this anvil/shelf arrangement and thank her for bringing it to your attention so that you can investigate it yourself?

h) Tell her to stop being silly, it's just a lump of iron?

i) Ask her what *she's* done to prevent this sort of thing happening?

j) Wonder why she's wasting her time complaining to you about it when she could be doing something more constructive?

k) Remind her proudly that you once pushed a book back from the edge of a shelf so no-one would get hurt?

l) Angst over the fact that people complain if you leave an anvil in the middle of the floor where they can trip over it, and now people complain if you put it on a weak shelf that lets it fall onto them, and you just can't win?

m) Hang up noisily because you're tired of hearing her whining?

n) Demand that she create for you a set of standards and a design blueprint for a shelf that will be able to bear the weight of any possible anvil, no matter how large?

o) Start telling her about how this one time a sparrow crapped on your shoulder?

p) Try to get back to that nice conversation you were having before?

q) Tell her that her injured shoulder is all in the past?

[and so forth]


Or... Might you say, "Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry that keeps happening to you. Are you okay?" and listen to her if she feels like talking about it, and try to figure out how you can help persuade people to be careful where they store their anvils?


Btw, "I'm so sorry that keeps happening to you" doesn't mean "I'm sorry for doing it to you" -- in the same way that "I'm so sorry about your mother's death" doesn't mean "I'm sorry for killing your mother." So you can say it even if your conscience is entirely clear with regards to health and safety.

OTOH, if you've thoughtlessly said something from a. through q. and if you now regret it, you might want to say, "Er, whoops, sorry about that. Are you okay?"

OTGH, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. It's just an analogy, and it's not perfect.


[On comments: Eh, you're all great but I just don't have time this time to keep up. Sorry. You all know my email address if you need to get hold of me, right?]
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
A few years ago, Patricia Wrede talked a fair amount on rec.arts.sf.composition about a novel she was writing, "Thirteenth Child". It had megafauna and magic in pioneer America, and sounded very cool. Here's how she described it in one discussion:

"The *plan* is for it to be a "settling the frontier" book, only without Indians (because I really hate both the older Indians-as-savages viewpoint that was common in that sort of book, *and* the modern Indians-as-gentle-ecologists viewpoint that seems to be so popular lately, and this seems the best way of eliminating the problem, plus it'll let me play with all sorts of cool megafauna)."

And not one of us said, because I think none of us realised or thought: You can't eliminate a problem by pretending that it doesn't exist. So we carried on talking about renaming Europe (and, sporadically, about tomatoes) as if Native Americans didn't exist.

Cut to 2009. RaceFail happened and I read a whole lot of links. One was about how "Little House on the Prairie" glosses over the terrible way Native Americans were treated by settlers like Laura's family. Another was about how Elizabeth Knox's "Dreamhunter", set in a recognisably New Zealand analogue, had no Mäori at all.

A couple of weeks, a month? ago "Thirteenth Child" popped into my mind again. Maybe I was looking at her website. And I thought, "Oh, wait a minute. She erased all the Native Americans. That's... not so good...."

And a few days ago Jo Walton reviewed it on Tor.com, and a bunch of other people said essentially, "She what?" Discussion has ensued there and on various LJs and other blogs [Edit 11/5: Updated link]; I really recommend reading at least the Tor.com thread if you don't understand what the problem is, because there are people there who have explained it way better than I can.

So why am I writing this if I'm not going to talk about it?

1) Because... Well, I've known Pat Wrede online for years. Dear friends-list: I'm totally not bashing on her; she's a great person. I like her tremendously, respect her a huge amount, and owe her a mountain for all her writing advice. I know she didn't mean to hurt people; it was out of ignorance and thoughtlessness. But she still wrote what she wrote.

And it wasn't only her ignorance and thoughtlessness. It was mine too: if I'd known or thought, I could have said something then when there was time to fix it. It was that of all of us on rasfc. I wonder if it was indirectly because even then rasfc wasn't really a comfortable place for people who might have been more clued up and likely to notice and speak out about the problem.

People are asking, in various LJs, "How could no-one in the writing and publishing process have noticed?" And... I don't know how to answer that. And I don't like having been a part of that not-noticing, of that failure. But I have to acknowledge that I was.

2) And because (though I haven't yet, I think, seen this being said in this context) sometimes I see people saying that people who notice this kind of thing are just being oversensitive, reading too much into it, imagining it, making it up, shifting the goalposts, etc. As if the complaints are completely arbitrary.

So I want to testify that they're not made up from whole cloth - otherwise it'd be really odd that I'd come up with the same objection to a book I was predisposed to think highly of independently to a bunch of other people who came up with the same objection. They're not arbitrary. It's even possible for white people to learn how to predict them. Now if white people could just learn how to predict them in time to not publish the mistake....

(Comments are screened due to me still not having time to create a comment policy. I'm going to be asleep, and then at work, but I'll unscreen stuff as I can.)

ETA 12/5: I'm not in future going to unscreen any comments that include a strawman. In particular, comments arguing against a position that no-one has in fact promoted. If you think that what you're arguing against isn't a strawman, then please include a cite for where you got it from. Thanks!
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
Following on from part 2, so far we've got a pretty clear consensus that it should be:
  • spec-fic focused;
  • publically readable and easily joinable;
  • a mailing list (which can be forwarded to a web forum and to nntp);
  • "rushing in".

So let's rush in: Brooks, what would it take for you to set up a mailing list with web and nntp interface? What moderation possibilities would it allow, what issues do we need to know, and what questions do we need to decide?


Regarding the 'vision statement' (original here), would the following be better, worse, or the same?

2 a) We know that society in general and speculative-fiction in specific contain many stereotypes and biases that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ablist, and/or intolerant of people in non-nuclear family structures, people of different religions or of no religion, and others.
  b) We don't want to unwittingly perpetuate such stereotypes and biases in our own fiction. We also don't want to unwittingly perpetuate them in real life and/or hurt a fellow human being.
  c) Therefore we want other members to feel free and safe to point out to us if we've said something that accidentally perpetuates stereotypes or biases or is otherwise hurtful; and we will take it as a favour and learn from it if they do.
[please see my latest post.]


My general plan for a timeline from now goes:
  1. get the technology set up;
  2. get the word out among people and groups that might be interested;
  3. nominate moderators and decide on rules.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Rainbow)
(To avoid derailment in racism_101, but of course anyone else is welcome to join in.)

Paul has taken a bad rap. And I have a nagging resentment against the anti-Paulites - not those who dislike him due to his bad rap, but those who have twisted what he said.

When I was in Korea I flatted for almost two years with a wonderful sweet woman who had grown up in a church that said "Wives, submit to your husbands" - and stopped there, without going on to the next verses that says that "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". And remember that Christ didn't just die for the church; he submitted to it: he washed the feet of his disciples.

Paul was writing in a time when saying "Wives and husbands, respect each other and submit to each other" would likely have been met with blank stares if not calls for a straitjacket. I'm not saying he deliberately muted his teaching because of that, but that, like us, he was a product of his own time. For his time, what he said was pretty radical. And I'm confident that if he lived today, he would be one of the most radical in promoting justice for women.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
Inspired by musing while composing the previous post: faith vs works is not a dichotomy.

Inside of me, faith is what matters.

Outside of me, works is what matters.

There is no inside without the outside; there is no outside without the inside. There is no faith without works, and there is no works without faith.

Now I have to go read... Corinthians? again and see if this is what Paul meant and I'm just reinventing the wheel.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Rainbow)
[Possibly it will seem less strange this time since I'm saying from the start that I'm not saying "You should" and therefore "Why should I?" is not appropriate. Instead I'm saying "I want to, and how can I and minimise the hurt it causes?"

So, again, any "I don't want to" or "Why should I?" or "How woeful is the life of a white writer?" will be summarily deleted. This will prevent me getting embroiled in a conversation I don't want to have and will thus save me time. As a bonus, anyone who gets accused of trying to censor someone simply because they didn't censor themself, can point to me as an example of what *real* censorship means.]

So, anyway, in the other thread I said I've got a story idea that wants to be in Africa. (The western part comes to mind. I don't know why. One of the reasons I want to do this is because I'm so ignorant about Africa that I don't even know what countries go where.) I pondered this on the way to the fish and chip shop and realised that, while technically true, it's also misleading. My story idea wants to be *in* Africa; but it doesn't want to be *of* Africa.

It's not at all unlikely (though nor is it certain) that there's somewhere where a story about a quest to the Underworld to rescue one's kin is not culturally inappropriate. It's less likely that there's somewhere that has a system where gods are 'assigned' to different roles so that there is, for example, a God of Children, a God of Storytellers, etc. And I highly doubt that there's somewhere which not only has m/patronymics but also has them take - not the form "X's son/daughter" - but "X's first/second/third/...".

So really what the story wants is to appropriate the setting of Africa for local flavour. Which I consider problematic. (Note that "problematic" doesn't mean "evil". It means "If I try this, there will be problems which I will want to consider.")

[Interlude: "It's your story, you can write it however you want!" is not helpful. Of course I *can*. But I don't *want* to write it however I want. I want to write it in a way that will satisfy me without unnecessarily hurting people.]

So while I was at the fish and chip shop I pondered how to respond to this realisation. I could, for example, throw out those parts of the story that aren't congruent with whatever setting I end up choosing. But I think if I did that I'd end up having nothing left that really inspired me. And then I wouldn't write it. And that fails my "Something is better than nothing" test.

Or I could write it but set it in a pseudo-European setting. But that also fails my "Something is better than nothing" test.

So I concluded that I should write it anyway but quit fooling myself that it's set anywhere in Africa. I think I should:

a) set it in a (part of) a pseudo-Africa;
b) research as much as possible about that part of the real Africa so I've got some authenticness available;
c) acknowledge the sources I use;
d) acknowledge that what I'm writing is nevertheless totally not authentic;
e) hopefully learn enough along the way that I'll be inspired by an idea that will be a little less appropriating;
f) iterate on the understanding that I'll never "win" and won't get any cookies.

[Which is a shame, because cookies are yummy. OTOH, they're also quite cheap at the supermarket, so I'll cope. As for winning, who wants to win? People only win when the race is over and you all stop running; I intend to keep writing until I die.]

On the way back from the fish and chip shop, I pondered the fact that I feel almost comfortable writing somewhere in a continent I know nothing about, but the idea of writing anything set in New Zealand just freezes me. Part of it might be that I grew up reading books set in the US, Britain, Europe, Japan, Ceylon... pretty much everywhere but New Zealand. Part of it is fear... whether abstractly of "getting it wrong", or altruistically of "offending someone", or selfishly of "being called out for getting it wrong", it's moot. Whatever it is, I'm afraid in a part of me that I don't know how to reach into and fix yet.

But maybe if I get more comfortable writing about places that aren't Europe, I might be able to ease my way towards places that are New Zealand. Dunno. It's kind of a plan, anyway.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Diddums)
There's my pretty rainbow-zebra icon which I use for posts about privilege and such.
But then there's my Diddums icon, which I don't get to use very often.

Hmm. I'll go with Helen (whom, incidentally, Facebook recently recommended as a friend for me).

So Avalon's Willow wrote an open letter to matociquala about race issues, and matociquala responded gracefully, and matociquala's commenters promptly started off with things like:

1) "The open letter was an overreaction."

2) "Us poor oppressed white writers just can't win: if we don't include people of colour we're racist and if we do include people of colour but get them wrong we're racist. What's a poor white writer to do?"

Oh, wah wah wah.

1) As a person of 100% white extraction, I feel I can speak for my race in saying that the open letter wasn't an overreaction.

2) Of course white writers can't win. No writers can win. If you don't write any words you don't have a novel, and if you do write words but get them wrong you have a bad novel. What's a writer to do?

Learn how to write better, you freaking idiot.

Of course people will always criticise you. That's life. Listen to the criticism, learn from it, and keep improving.

Edited to add: Some people seem to think this is all about telling people what to say and what not to say. It's not. It's just about me telling people who say words like 'overreacting' that they're freaking idiots. They can still say it. They're just freaking idiots.

Anyway, I'm bored with talking about censorship, so I'm going to exercise it instead.

Any future comments that are primarily about how woeful the plight is for the white writer, and how repressed those politically correct people are being, will be summarily repressed.

Any comments, however, that are primarily about "Yes, this is an issue, and I want to do something about it without being a freaking idiot," are most welcome. Because I'd quite like to have that discussion if I can do it in an environment where I don't have to continually justify why I feel that myself.

If you think I've repressed your comment unjustly you can put it up on your own LJ.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Rainbow)
Farmers
For her: lingerie, makeup, footspa, revlon stuffs
For him: in-car mp3 player, brut extreme, digital cameral, underwear

The Warehouse
For her: dresses, shorts, lingerie, diamond rings, Active Intent Clothing
For him: iPod nanos, DVDs, satin boxer shorts
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
Via [livejournal.com profile] via_pigeon:

<begin repost>
[v. cool 'skin coloured' logo, aka 'Dear LiveJournal, why will you not let my image link work?']
Skin Coloured is intended to be a collaborative, visual exploration of what it is to be non-white in a white culture. Make-up, plasters and tights - even when they’re marked “flesh-coloured” - are not the colour of skin that isn’t white. And whilst white women may have trouble matching these items to their skin, for women who don’t class themselves as white, this inconvenience is symptomatic of a wider problem.

To help illustrate this problem, therefore, Skin Coloured is looking for submissions. Send us photographs that illustrate the inadequacy of provisions for non-white people, and we’ll post them on the blog, and hopefully both those submitting, and those who’re here to learn, will gain something from it.

Further information can be found here. Please help us by reposting this.
<end repost>
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
It turns out there's a right way and a wrong way of offering unsolicited advice and help to random strangers.

Some weeks ago, someone solicitously advised me that I oughtn't to use my laptop at my bus-stop in the evenings in this part of town. I said I was happy taking the risk. At which, much offended that I wasn't taking his advice, he said huffily, "Well, I hope nothing bad happens to you." I may not have sounded terribly sincere when I returned the good wishes word for word to him. As soon as someone invents lolcat videos, this scene gets tagged with "Chivalry: ur doin it wrong".

And probably around about the same time, I read a conversation on the interweb about respecting a woman's "no" instead of asking again and again on the assumption that she's just playing hard to get. In frustration some guy announced, "Okay, ladies: if I ask you out and you say no, that's it: I won't ask you out again!" At which I blinked and thought, "...Um, this is supposed to abash us? If only everyone did that as a matter of course!"

(I think he was operating under the assumption that only men can ask women out. If that were true, then his only asking once means that a woman only has that one chance to say yes or no, so his taking her no at face value when she means yes would be a disaster. But it's not true. She can say no, and see him turning away, and if she wants she can run after him and say, "Actually yes." Or if she means no but changes her mind an hour, day, week, year later, she can phone him up and say, "Hey, if you're still interested, would you like to go out with me?" And then the ball's in his court again.)

So, bearing in mind this pattern where someone makes an offer, is refused courteously enough, and responds to the refusal with anger or cajoling or the like...

Last night I was walking down the street from one bus stop, where the bus was 18 minutes late, to another, which has a telepathic doodacky that tells you when the next bus is coming. I was glancing behind myself as I went in case the bus overtook me on the way, and as I did this a car full of young guys pulled up alongside me. I prepared for wolf-whistles. Conversation ensued:

Driver: "Hey, d'you need a ride somewhere?"

Me: "Nah, I'm good, thanks."

Driver: "Okay!"

And he cheerfully did a U-ie and drove off; and I blinked a couple of times and walked cheerfully on to my bus stop.

"No, thanks."

"Okay!"

It was that simple.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Rainbow)
without having actually read the original studies:

1. Listening to sexist humour makes people act in a more sexist way than listening either to non-sexist humour or to sexist statements.

2. Being powerless impairs cognitive functioning -- allowing -isms and other hierarchies to be self-perpetuating.

(IIRC, one of these was via Figleaf and the other via Bitchy Jones. OTOH I'm not entirely all here this week so I may be wrong. OTGH they're both good blogs anyway.)
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
There is a school of thought that women (and presumably other minorities) shouldn't sweat the small stuff when there are bigger problems to confront; that if we complain about a trivial matter, it will give men an excuse to call us oversensitive ("oversensitive" is the new "hysterical") and to ignore us when we complain about the bigger problems as well.

It is true that when a woman complains about a small thing, she is told "You're just imagining it. You're being oversensitive. It's not important. Don't make a fuss." She is told it so often that she begins believing it and she learns to shut up.

I was in a crowded train in Korea when a man started getting rather close. There was this lump pressing against me. I thought to myself, "I'm just imagining it. I'm being oversensitive. It's probably just his hand in his pocket. He's not doing it on purpose." I shifted away. He shifted to follow me. My theory on which portion of his anatomy was rubbing against me became untenable. I thought to myself, "It's not important. Don't make a fuss." And I walked away to another car of the train (in retrospect, leaving him free to molest another woman).

I wish now that I had looked him in the eye and told him in a calm voice for everyone around us to hear, "Please stop that."

But I wasn't then capable of doing that. I didn't have the confidence. I didn't know how to do it. I hadn't had the practice.

And that is why I think it's important for me to sweat the small stuff. Because it gives me the confidence, the skill, and the practice that if/when it becomes necessary to sweat the big stuff, I'll be able to do it. And if, when I sweat the small stuff, a man takes the excuse to dismiss me, too bad. It's not about him; it's about me.

On a happier note, a year later when I was in a ger camp in Mongolia and a drunken man came into my ger, checked out and moved on from each of the three empty beds, hid the light cord in the rafters, and sat on my bed, I did have something in me to get out of the bed, shove him off me, find my torch, tell him off in a mixture of bad Mongolian and incomprehensible-to-him English, shove him out the door, and even push home the bolt that until that moment of adrenaline had been hopelessly stuck. Of course for months afterwards -- even with that clear evidence of his premeditation! -- I thought, "I was just imagining it. I was being oversensitive. He just made a mistake." But in the moment I acted just as I needed to.


Random addendum:
And if my hysterical oversensitive demands make life difficult for those poor beleagured men? Well, recently I was looking up male and female life expectancy differentials. One 'theory' about why women live longer than men postulated that the adversity women experience makes us stronger. So really, if I make life difficult for men, I'm actually doing them a favour by increasing their life expectancy. No need to thank me, men. I'm happy to help.
zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
Lived I, sir, in another time,
Your constant hounding were a crime
Restraining orders might abate.
Go elsewhere if you will not wait.


(from a post to rasfc, ganked out here so I don't lose it)

Profile

zeborah: Map of New Zealand with a zebra salient (Default)
zeborah

June 2014

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 1st, 2014 01:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios