Not of general interest discusses life after tenure. Also writing houses.
Update: MineralPhys prof also discusses life after tenure.
We still use the term patriarchy, but we really mean kyriarchy, I think, because with our post-modern definition, the patriarchy oppresses everyone, not just women. Tiny grain of rice explains intersectionality.
Scalzi linked to another great piece on intersectionality, this time a teaching tool, from the border house.
From The Nation: Why are we willing to spend so many resources on protecting people from terror and so little protecting them from preventable accidents?
Perhaps the way the rich have been getting so much richer than everyone else may have something to do with it.
NW edible explains how to pick good seedlings.
This Jeff Goldblum interview is adorbable.
We were in this week’s carnival of personal finance.
Laura Vanderkam says yes, you can be ambitious and smell the roses too, and Real Simple is hurting women (and being disingenuous) by saying otherwise.
Sometimes you hit a Salon article and end up reading a few more. Here’s one on wikipedia systematically moving women authors from the main authors page to the women authors subpage. Fourth grader with argument in support of marriage equality. Conversion therapy dude apologizes and notes that he’s actually still gay (and that’s ok!).
My mom sent me this NYTimes link about Jane Austen as a game theorist. She also went to a classics potluck this week and noted that Newmann’s Own has a salad dressing with identical ingredients to what was used in Ancient Rome. Who knew? (Apparently my mom did.)
Did you say higgs boson?
Not sure how we feel about this ring.
Wandering Scientist had a couple of good introspective posts this week. Here’s the first.
Grumpy Rumblings (of the formerly untenured) 
April 27, 2013 at 9:20 am
Thanks for your pointers to posts about “Life After Tenure”. I’m definitely enjoying these, b/c many bloggers skew younger. It motivated me to do my own post: http://mineralphys.blogspot.com/2013/04/life-before-tenure-versus-life-after.html
April 27, 2013 at 9:45 am
Thanks for the link! I’m enjoying the discussion on my second navel-gazing post and hope it continues over the weekend. Discussion on the first navel-gazing post would be awesome, too, of course, but seems to have stopped.
I saw a tweet from a Wikipedia editor saying that the editorial board had “almost unanimously” voted down the creation of the American Women Authors category, which was the action of one editor. I don’t know enough about how Wikipedia works to know whether this means it will be reversed soon.
April 27, 2013 at 9:55 am
I’m still pretty brain dead. The end of the semester is the worst for meetings and students needing review.
April 27, 2013 at 10:07 am
I’m glad to hear that about Wikipedia. I had seen articles about the category and then little after.
April 27, 2013 at 1:47 pm
From a whatever comment: “My name is John Pack Lambert. I used to go to Brigham Young University but am now studying at Wayne State University. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”
“You can see his last 500 edits here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Johnpacklambert&offset=&limit=500&target=Johnpacklambert “
April 27, 2013 at 10:04 am
I didn’t think the Real Simple letter was that bad–in fact I enjoyed I because I feel the same way, but it’s rather unpopular to actually vocalize that. She’s not saying don’t lean in ever just don’t treat it like an every day, every moment, every second (which, while I haven’t read the book, many of the people who talk to me about it expect that from me every second I’m awake. Um no.) I’m surprised it was interpreted as don’t lean in ever. (And I can’t leave a comment there so that’s why I’m bugging you about it :)
April 27, 2013 at 10:08 am
We’re not big Real Simple fans here (I always feel like it would clutter my life), so we haven’t actually read the article. But if it does what Vanderkam says, saying that Sheryl Sandberg is saying you can’t stop and smell the roses (which is odd given that she goes home at 5:30 most nights and makes a big deal about that), then that’s a bad message.
It really isn’t unpopular to vocalize the idea that people should take vacations and be mindful and so on (also to get manicures and take “me time”). It’s quite popular, especially in the media. Women get told ALL THE TIME to stop working so hard. It kind of irritates me, actually (as the recipient of such comments, even though I really don’t work too hard, except that the last two weeks of the semester suck).
April 27, 2013 at 12:08 pm
I mean with real people, not the media. Co-workers, family, friends. That’s what I mean by it’s been really unpopular for me to say “Thanks but I’m comfortable where I’m at right now.”
April 27, 2013 at 1:41 pm
I get the opposite from real people. Presumably that means there’s some medium that real people think everybody else should be at.
April 27, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Also, teaching gender and work few weeks ago, there were TONS of media articles about how dare women want to slow down because if they do then they are letting down all women. (These are the same idiots who say we do a disservice to other women if we take our husband’s names.) I think we’re either told one of the other (rest, work) but not told it’s ok to do both very often. And if you’re in a place where you’re not striving to be whatever is next career wise, you can take a lot of heat. (This might also be because my “career” path is not conventional and while I’m ok with that, many around me think I need to stick to moving up a traditional corporate ladder. I’d rather my job allow me to pay my bills to fulfill my other goals. Saying that outloud is the fastest way to stop a conversation.)
April 27, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Oh, there’s articles in the media from both directions. As a woman you can’t win, and as a mother you’re doubly guilty. The media only seems to be able to see things in terms of black and white. But if what Laura V. is saying is true, then the Real Simple article is just another one of those dichotomizing articles, even as Lean In was careful not to do that.
You’d probably feel comfortable reading a lot of the personal finance blogs on the feralhomemaking and femmefrugality blogrolls (see our blogroll to the side). They’re all about unconventional ways of paying the bills. (Also Mr. Money Moustache, though he’s getting to be more of a blowhard these days than he used to be.)
April 28, 2013 at 9:17 am
“As a woman you can’t win, and as a mother you’re doubly guilty.” I keep telling my students that. They seem to think it’ll be different when they graduate. In 2 years. Ha.
April 27, 2013 at 10:34 am
Since Laura’s post cuts off mid-sentence and comments are closed, I’m guessing that something went wrong with an auto-post- she had said she would be traveling at the end of the week.
I think that if you don’t want to prioritize your career and can afford the sort of life you want without prioritizing your career- more power to you. I also think you can prioritize your career and still make time to enjoy clementines or what not. However, our culture often presents the two options (career focus vs. stop and smell the clementines focus) as either/or, instead of the more accurate view that it is a spectrum, and we all have to find our happy place on that spectrum. That false dichotomy is really harmful, in my view. But perhaps I am a little too close to that issue right now to view it clearly, since I am working through related concerns in my own life right now (that’s sort of what the post of mine that Nicoleandmaggie linked to is all about).
Also, I think our culture tends to overlook the extent to which careers can bring joy into our lives. Everyone always says that no one looks back on their life on their death bed and wishes they’d spent more time at the office… but I don’t know. I want to look back and feel like I’ve accomplished something with my life. There are lots of ways to “accomplish something” and career is one great way.
April 27, 2013 at 10:36 am
Agreed!
(Also, I’ve heard people talk about their mothers saying the mothers wished they’d had careers, perhaps not at their death beds, but late in life.)
April 29, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Whoa – comments are closed? I wondered why no one was commenting on that post! Technical difficulties…
April 27, 2013 at 12:14 pm
This: “That false dichotomy is really harmful, in my view.” Absolutely. I feel like the Lean In conversation has moved there though.
April 27, 2013 at 1:35 pm
I don’t think it has.
April 28, 2013 at 9:18 am
I’m beginning to think this is location bound. The conversations at my schools/friends/family vs. other locations.
April 28, 2013 at 9:19 am
Could be.
April 27, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Thanks for the link, nicoleandmaggie!
April 27, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Thanks for the articles!
April 27, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Wikipedia editors have started quietly moving female authors out of the “American novelists” category and into a newly-created sub-category for “American women novelists,” with the intention, it seems, of creating an”American novelists” page comprised entirely of men. There is currently no corollary sub-category for “American men novelists.”
This is the most f*cked uppe thing I’ve heard all day. What the f*cken f*cke is wrong with these goddamn motherf*cken d00d motherf*ckers???
May 1, 2013 at 2:14 pm
And this link made me think of Comradde: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Starving-Settlers-in-Jamestown-Colony-Resorted-to-Eating-A-Child-205472161.html
April 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm
HAHAHAHAH! The man ring needs a corkscrew!!!
April 27, 2013 at 4:04 pm
OMG, the wikipedia dude sounds like such a douche. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24
April 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm
It’s good to see that the majority of people posting there recognize the gross misogyny.
April 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm
YES.
April 27, 2013 at 4:51 pm
But amazing how much havoc one tiny douche can make all by himself. What a tool.
April 28, 2013 at 9:01 am
Yep.
April 28, 2013 at 5:44 am
That ring is awesome! If only they didn’t call it the “man ring”…
April 28, 2013 at 6:22 am
Maybe they should replace the moustache comb with a corkscrew like CPP suggests.
April 29, 2013 at 4:47 pm
I agree!
April 29, 2013 at 4:49 pm
fwiw, I’ve always thought “Real Simple” is a complete fraud. Everything I’ve ever seen in that magazine is a) artificial and b) complicated. F**k it.
April 29, 2013 at 4:59 pm
AGREED.
May 1, 2013 at 1:14 pm
The Austen one makes me want to read more of her stuff.
May 1, 2013 at 1:15 pm
what haven’t you read?
May 1, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Honestly, I’m not even sure. I never read much of it and when I did, it was mainly in High School. I think I read Emma. And I think I read Pride and Prejudice.
May 1, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Pride and Prejudice is best. Sense and Sensibility would be my second rec, and Emma third.
May 1, 2013 at 2:11 pm
P.S. Here’s a link that made me think of you: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/01/judy-clarke-the-defense-lawyer-appointed-to-defend-dzhokhar-tsarnaev.html
May 5, 2013 at 8:25 pm
The rich-are-getting-richer one doesn’t make sense to me. It says that between 2009 and 2011, overall wealth went up, but that wealth gain was concentrated in the top 7% or those with a net worth of $836,033 or better. Those guys averaged a gain of 28%, but the rest of us saw a loss of 4%. The reason given is because richer people have more money in stocks and bonds, which rallied, while the others had theirs in home equity, which remained flat.
Between 1/1/09 and 1/1/11, my net worth increased by 35%. Even if you look at the end of those years instead of the beginning, it still increased by 19%. Yet, even at the end of 2011, my net worth was 363K. So now I’m wondering what’s weird about me. About half my net worth is in home equity. And about 1/4 is in my pension and about 1/4 is in stocks and bonds. So I also had a lot more of my net worth tied up in home equity than the market.
One thing that definitely helped me was no job loss. Another thing that helped is that I was pre-paying my mortgage rather than refinancing all my money out like my house is a piggy bank, but it seems like people who did that wouldn’t have much wealth at all afterwards.
I’m really surprised the dividing line (836K) is so high.
May 6, 2013 at 5:53 am
Dang it, wordpress just ate my lengthy reply.
But no, it isn’t just where you keep your money, although favorable tax treatment of income from stocks is definitely a big part of it. And yes, most normal people have the majority of their net worth in housing, but that doesn’t top out all that high. The big action is happening with the richest increasing dramatically, not with the normals being flat or dropping. Laws have a lot to do with what is going on, and corporate compensation for “superstars” does as well.
May 6, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Evil, gluttonous WordPress.
Well, being merely average, I also have favorable tax treatment on all my work income (15% marginal tax rate)! And I get even better rates on stock income. So that gives me an advantage over highly paid people.
Admittedly, I did not get any raises or bonuses or golden parachutes, though I did get an increase in longevity pay of $20/month before taxes. Still, how was I able to slide into this top-7% disguise?
I did figure out one other thing–that article is talking about household wealth, and I am not the whole household, so it’s not fair to compare my personal wealth to the figure in the article. Nor is it fair to claim that my roommate has no wealth. He has a 401K plus some extra stocks, so that’s probably 100-200K more.
Oh, and another thing that’s weird about me is I have no kids. Kids tend to eat some of your wealth (literally, especially during the teen years–soo hungry!).
May 6, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Everyone gets that 15% on that level of income. It’s just later income that gets more. Because that’s how marginal tax rates work. https://nicoleandmaggie.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/marginal-tax-rates-why-they-make-sense/
The bad thing is when rich folks get 15% tax rates on very high levels of income, but other folks have to pay 25%, 28%, and more just because they are earning income rather than having so much extra money that they can tax shelter their income. That’s an interaction between government law and having income from stocks. Plus the way that housing wealth is sheltered helps rich folks more than it helps poor folks or even middle-class folks. Another interaction with government. And bankruptcy law (and how different assets that affect the Trumps of the world are sheltered). And corporate welfare to big oil companies… and so on.
May 6, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Yep.