# orderedItems[].content
Master thread for Substack shenanigans.

https://galacticturtle.substack.com/

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
Master thread for Substack shenanigans.

https://galacticturtle.substack.com/

# orderedItems[].source.content
Master thread for Substack shenanigans. 

https://galacticturtle.substack.com/

# orderedItems[].content
Turtle the Plebeian's Book Musings:

A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).

I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.

The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with.

She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit.

She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance?

At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize.

Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.

# orderedItems[].contentMap.en
Turtle the Plebeian's Book Musings:

A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).

I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.

The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with.

She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit.

She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance?

At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize.

Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.

# orderedItems[].formerRepresentations.orderedItems[].content
Turtle the Plebeian's Book Review:

A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).

I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.

The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with.

She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit.

She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance?

At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize.

Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.

# orderedItems[].formerRepresentations.orderedItems[].contentMap.en
Turtle the Plebeian's Book Review:

A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).

I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.

The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with.

She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit.

She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance?

At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize.

Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.

# orderedItems[].formerRepresentations.orderedItems[].source.content
Turtle the Plebeian's Book Review:

A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).

I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.

The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with. 

She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit. 

She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance? 

At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize. 

Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.

# orderedItems[].source.content
Turtle the Plebeian's Book Musings:

A quick read of an edited TED Talk by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: We Should All Be Feminists (2012).

I'd say everything in here was your basic intro to feminism 101 (which is needed and still very much over the top for a good chunk of the global population... as she illustrates), save for a paragraph where she made the currently controversial claim that women are human females.

The big picture painted here is that everyone benefits from gender equality and everyone suffers from gender inequality. As such, we should all be feminists.. because equality is good. The avenue for enacting this change is to raise our children differently. This is, I find, a rather fluffy and optimistic take on things that I've long since become disillusioned with. 

She also opens with a joking-but-serious account of how she grew to call herself not simply a feminist, but a "Happy African Feminist Who Does Not Hate Men And Who Likes To Wear Lip Gloss And High Heels For Herself And Not For Men" based on the unsolicited feedback she was getting from others while simultaneously pointing out how odd it is that women are so concerned with being well-liked. While in the end she describes why she calls herself a feminist, full stop, I think she stops short on the idea of women needing to be well-liked. Then again, TED Talks do have a time limit. 

She describes the impact of a narrow view of masculinity on boys as one that gives them fragile egos since they are called out if they ever miss the mark. That impact carries over to girls who are then expected to go out of their way to cradle such fragile egos like raw eggs falling out of the sky. She says in the past, men were dominant because they were physically stronger and that was the most important factor but in the present things like intelligence, innovation, and creativity are the most important so things are allowed to change. She points out two prominent examples for which she was the most ready, willing, and able person for a task but was turned away specifically because she was female. I'd be interested to hear if she thinks women's freedoms and successes are contingent on the comforts of the modern developed world remaining in place. What does her take on dominance mean for less developed areas of the world? Should women there simply wait for their time to shine or should their strategy just be different? If so, what would those differences in strategy highlight about male dominance? 

At one point, she says, “The problem with gender is that it prescribes how we should be rather than recognizing how we are. Imagine how much happier we would be, how much freer to be our true individual selves, if we didn’t have the weight of gender expectations.” However, not too long later she says, "I have chosen to no longer be apologetic for my femininity. And I want to be respected in all my femaleness... I wear [pencil skirts, high heels, makeup, etc.] because I like them and because I feel good in them. The ‘male gaze’, as a shaper of my life’s choices, is largely incidental." To this, I'd be interested to hear why she is seemingly equating femininity (undefined but definition alluded to) with femaleness rather than as a product of a system she is setting out to criticize. 

Ultimately, I'd say this essay has no teeth. But I also don't think it set out with that goal in mind. I'd be interested in hearing how her thoughts have evolved since this was published in 2012. Coincidentally, 2012 was the year I graduated high school. At that point in time, I think I would've agreed with most of what was said here.

# orderedItems[].content
Some Spinsters have expressed surprise that women's residences exist! Below are links to a few in the United States. The target demographic is usually women 18-30 who are moving to a large city for work, internships, or school. Residency is usually restricted to a maximum of 2-5 years. For some, two meals a day are included in rent. There is usually proof of employment or school acceptance required to sign a lease. Some renew leases by the month or the lease renews automatically on a monthly basis until you decide to leave whenever you wish, no penalty. For some, rent is based on income. Rooms are usually single or double occupancy and there are usually shared hallway bathrooms. In essence, it's like an alternative to a dormitory that can extend past your college years. It would be great to see these sorts of residences grow in number and be able to accommodate women in more situations along with a greater age and residency range. But lots of young professionals don't know about these sorts of places! If you know someone who could benefit, tell them to check it out. ^_^

BOSTON, MA

Bayridge Residence: https://www.bayridgeresidence.org/
Our Lady's Guild House: http://www.ourladysguildhouse.com/

NEW YORK CITY, NY

The Webster Apartments: https://websterapartments.org/
The Markle (apparently they allow men now... not sure when that happened): https://marklenyc.org/
Saint Agnes Residence: http://www.saintagnesresidence.com/
Jeanne d'Arc Residence: https://jdaresidence.com/about
Sacred Heart Residence: http://www.sacredheartresidence.com/
Saint Joseph's Immigrant Home: http://www.saintjosephsimmigranthome.com/
St. Mary's Residence: https://stmarysresidence.org/

WASHINGTON, DC

Thompson-Markward Hall: https://tmhdc.org/
Centro Maria Residence: https://centromariadc.org/cmdc_01/

# orderedItems[].source
Some Spinsters have expressed surprise that women's residences exist! Below are links to a few in the United States. The target demographic is usually women 18-30 who are moving to a large city for work, internships, or school. Residency is usually restricted to a maximum of 2-5 years. For some, two meals a day are included in rent. There is usually proof of employment or school acceptance required to sign a lease. Some renew leases by the month or the lease renews automatically on a monthly basis until you decide to leave whenever you wish, no penalty. For some, rent is based on income. Rooms are usually single or double occupancy and there are usually shared hallway bathrooms. In essence, it's like an alternative to a dormitory that can extend past your college years. It would be great to see these sorts of residences grow in number and be able to accommodate women in more situations along with a greater age and residency range. But lots of young professionals don't know about these sorts of places! If you know someone who could benefit, tell them to check it out. ^_^ 

BOSTON, MA

Bayridge Residence: https://www.bayridgeresidence.org/
Our Lady's Guild House: http://www.ourladysguildhouse.com/

NEW YORK CITY, NY

The Webster Apartments: https://websterapartments.org/
The Markle (apparently they allow men now... not sure when that happened): https://marklenyc.org/
Saint Agnes Residence: http://www.saintagnesresidence.com/
Jeanne d'Arc Residence: https://jdaresidence.com/about
Sacred Heart Residence: http://www.sacredheartresidence.com/
Saint Joseph's Immigrant Home: http://www.saintjosephsimmigranthome.com/
St. Mary's Residence: https://stmarysresidence.org/

WASHINGTON, DC

Thompson-Markward Hall: https://tmhdc.org/
Centro Maria Residence: https://centromariadc.org/cmdc_01/

# orderedItems[].content
When I think about women's spaces I often think about the school I went to and the dynamic that existed there. The layout was an all girls K-12 school on one side of the street and an all boys K-12 school on the other side of the street.

Technically, once you got to high school, you could freely enter the other school as you wished since various high school classes and activities were either combined or taught by teachers at the other school. The boys school had this pretty massive entry area, super fancy with lots of couches, a big fireplace, portraits of old headmasters, and photos of every graduating class from the past 200 years. They also had a much nicer library and cafeteria probably because their school used to be an old hotel and our school has been knocked down and remodeled many times from a finishing school that was the size of the average wealthy person's house to a private school that needed to fit 600 people inside... and I tend to dislike modern architecture.

Each time I passed through the typical hangout areas in the boys school, there were absolutely no girls. Even if you were amongst the girls who jumped headfirst into the world of dating, you would go to the boys school for your class then come right back. However the girls school was a different situation. Right inside the door to the high school portion of our building was the lounge unofficially called the co-ed lounge. This was routinely overrun by boys and directly below the single sex lounges on the second floor. The second floor in general was a place where boys weren't allowed to loiter. It was a daily occurrence using a certain staircase to bypass the co-ed lounge and sometimes for other girls I'd be asked to go down there and report back on which boys were there so they could decide if they wanted to interact with them or not.

Since I graduated, a lot of bullshit has happened (much to the anger of all living alumni) and the high school is entirely co-ed. They've also knocked down a bunch of stuff and remodeled heavily on the girls side getting rid of the very cohesive lower, middle, and high schools all connected by a main hallway, chopping it up into two separate new buildings: One for lower school with boys classrooms on one side and girls on the other and one for middle school with girls upstairs and boys downstairs. The high school, now co-ed, is what used to be the boys school.

Last year my dad was roped back into the school's politics (he was one of the first black students at the boys school back in the 70's) because current students and recent graduates had been going online and highlighting two problems about the place: Racist and sexist heckling, essentially. The core of this was stemming from a newly formed Young Republicans club (made up of only white boys from a specific neighborhood), verbally harassing (with the help of their parents) the black girls in the corner they'd found for themselves to hang out in. But as conversations continued, it opened up a whole host of other problems, the core of which all could be boiled down to boys taking up all the space, attention, and resources and the teachers not knowing how to recognize or handle it... the result of tossing together two schools that had developed their own distinct culture for over a century.

COVID has derailed problem-solving on this front so... TO BE CONTINUED.

Anyway. Support women's spaces.

# orderedItems[].source
When I think about women's spaces I often think about the school I went to and the dynamic that existed there. The layout was an all girls K-12 school on one side of the street and an all boys K-12 school on the other side of the street. 

Technically, once you got to high school, you could freely enter the other school as you wished since various high school classes and activities were either combined or taught by teachers at the other school. The boys school had this pretty massive entry area, super fancy with lots of couches, a big fireplace, portraits of old headmasters, and photos of every graduating class from the past 200 years. They also had a much nicer library and cafeteria probably because their school used to be an old hotel and our school has been knocked down and remodeled many times from a finishing school that was the size of the average wealthy person's house to a private school that needed to fit 600 people inside... and I tend to dislike modern architecture. 

Each time I passed through the typical hangout areas in the boys school, there were absolutely no girls. Even if you were amongst the girls who jumped headfirst into the world of dating, you would go to the boys school for your class then come right back. However the girls school was a different situation. Right inside the door to the high school portion of our building was the lounge unofficially called the co-ed lounge. This was routinely overrun by boys and directly below the single sex lounges on the second floor. The second floor in general was a place where boys weren't allowed to loiter. It was a daily occurrence using a certain staircase to bypass the co-ed lounge and sometimes for other girls I'd be asked to go down there and report back on which boys were there so they could decide if they wanted to interact with them or not. 

Since I graduated, a lot of bullshit has happened (much to the anger of all living alumni) and the high school is entirely co-ed. They've also knocked down a bunch of stuff and remodeled heavily on the girls side getting rid of the very cohesive lower, middle, and high schools all connected by a main hallway, chopping it up into two separate new buildings: One for lower school with boys classrooms on one side and girls on the other and one for middle school with girls upstairs and boys downstairs. The high school, now co-ed, is what used to be the boys school.

Last year my dad was roped back into the school's politics (he was one of the first black students at the boys school back in the 70's) because current students and recent graduates had been going online and highlighting two problems about the place: Racist and sexist heckling, essentially. The core of this was stemming from a newly formed Young Republicans club (made up of only white boys from a specific neighborhood), verbally harassing (with the help of their parents) the black girls in the corner they'd found for themselves to hang out in. But as conversations continued, it opened up a whole host of other problems, the core of which all could be boiled down to boys taking up all the space, attention, and resources and the teachers not knowing how to recognize or handle it... the result of tossing together two schools that had developed their own distinct culture for over a century. 

COVID has derailed problem-solving on this front so... TO BE CONTINUED.

Anyway. Support women's spaces.