A Likely Lass

probably nothing of consequence

Archive for the tag “monologue”

If the shoe fits, it’s too expensive

Let’s talk for a minute about shoes.

No wait, let’s talk about genetics for a minute.

I come from Tall People. We’re Nordic, so that’s what we do: be Tall. There are good things that come from being tall: reaching the cupboards, for instance. Or being naturally good at sports involving reach, often because tall people have longer arms. There are not-so-great things, too. For instance: the shrinking of the “playing field” when you’re dating, the uncomfortableness of living in a house built in the 1920s, etc.

Why does the dating field shrink, you say? Well, as a woman who stands five feet eight and three-quarters inches without her shoes on, it means that with even the most minimal shoe, I am five feet nine inches tall. Add a pair of sneakers and suddenly I’m five-nine-and-a-half. Stilettos? Approaching six feet. Most men like to not have to reach upwards for their date, I am quite sure, nor stare upwards at a woman who is glaring suspiciously down at them (which is another thing Tall Nordic People are good at: glaring suspiciously. See: January Jones as “Betty Draper” in Mad Men).

This was not a problem in the cold Northern Reaches where I grew up: most men are around six feet or taller, probably having evolved to height because in snow-drifts, you are only half as tall. However, I have found that in Virginia, there seems to be a height ceiling of around five-foot-ten or eleven, for men, maybe five seven for women. Disregarding any scientific inquiry into cold and height ratio on a population or general population heights for this area, I’m fairly sure I’m taller than average.

Which naturally means, in three-inch heels, I’m a friggin’ amazon. Okay, okay, not really. I just feel like it.

It’s the primary reason that my small collection of Shoes I Love (primarily stilettos) go unworn (well, that and having to walk across a gravel parking lot and risk a broken ankle is not ideal). I feel like I tower over people. Possibly even Loom. However, I decided recently that if I’m going to spend money on lovely and expensive shoes, I really ought to wear them.
So thus has begun one of my first resolutions: wear ALL the shoes. Not at once, because that would be ridiculous, but one at a time. And after the first few days, I started keeping a tally.
Number of comments about my height: 22
Number of men visibly intimidated: 5
Number of men visibly intimidated (whom I was not making snarly faces at): 3
Number of men who made a comment about my “looming” over them: 1
Number of people who made a comment about me seeming “much shorter” when in sneakers: 7
That one brave soul who told me I should stop “looming” over him was none other than a coworker who works in the IT department, and is obviously confident enough in his ability to cut me off from Google News not to be intimidated by my sudden and alarming additional height.
So therein lies my quandary: do I loom over others, leaving them to gaze eternally at my chin (gosh how attractive) and allow myself to speak to their foreheads, or do I stop wearing fantastic shoes?
Dilemma.

No, really. Dilemma!

Advertisements

Evolution, Creation

I always wonder what makes people believe in Creation instead of evolution. I read things likeĀ this and it really makes me wonder about the amount of logic some people possess.

First of all, the absence of transitional forms… Possessing logic, one might think that the earth’s crust is about ~75 km deep, at the highest. You may also think that the earth has a total surface area of about 145-150,000,000 km. You may want to get a calculator and type in something like 7 (I’d guess, the average depth of crust that holds presentable “life” fossils or other evidence) * 145,000,000. You get maybe somewhere around 1,015,000,000. That would be about how much earth you’d have to sift through to get a complete idea of the fossil record. The average archeological dig is what, a few acres, if that?

So we end up with a very fraction of a percent of probable data out there, and someone has the nerve to complain about the ‘lack of transitional forms’ and point to a book written by men millions of years after the first recognizable australopithecine died as proof of “creation”. Generally, in any other culture, we would relegate the writing of that book to myth and fiction. We would paste a shiny colorful cover on the front and sell it for 5.99 at Chapters as an ‘informational look on the myths of an ancient culture’. That word right there, myth. Yet here, we try to discredit evidence provided by a provable scientific method as “wrong” and hold up a book as our only truth.

I guess I wouldn’t be so offended if it was, maybe, a collection of books supported by viewable evidence. Like the story of Noah and the Ark – if people could physically view the ark, it may lend credibility. Or the Garden of Eden, the Bible’s version of the transitional form – if there was some evidence of that, maybe it would be easier to believe.

But Creationism, much as Christianity, depends on the nay-saying of other ideas to promote and ‘prove’ its own. It’s centered around belief of the unseen and fear of postexistance consequences, revolving around a book whose shady history doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

As such, we end up with people who ‘believe’ and say things like, “It should be noted that today anthropologists agree that the different human races have a common origin – a Biblical doctrine,” a phrase which could easily be made true by modifying it slightly to read, “It should be noted that today anthropologists agree that the concept of human ‘races’ is defunct and absurd, and that there is currently only one human ‘species’ undivided by such societal constructs as ‘race’.” It should be noted that evolution has been a constantly changing idea – from Darwin’s first book to now, people have not believed consistantly the same thing. They have relied upon facts and observable evidence to form and modify the theory, instead of hanging on to a myth of a long-dead population. The difference between Creation and evolution, simply put, is just that.

Of course, there is value in hanging on to old things. Certainly, I love antiques and would fill my house with them. However, hanging on to an old idea that has long been disproved and attempting to force it upon others (such as school children) is extreme and disturbing. We saw what forceful application of ideas could accomplish in World War II – why would we try, albeit in a less invasive way, to do it again? Why are we forcing children to learn about a belief system, a religion, as science?

And before I hear the cries of “Well, it’s only fair,” let me say this: it is not fair. Science is ever-evolving, as new ideas, theories, and evidence comes to light. Science has saved mortal bodies, it has given us bridges and cars and controlled combustion, it has given us knowledge of our earth and understanding of ourselves. It’s help cure and sometimes, to hurt. But it is a wholly human thing, credited absolutely by human thought and ingenuity. There is no invisible god in science who forces people to accept a myth as their truth, no smothering weight of belief to stifle human curiousity. Creation may be force-fed as a truth, but as of yet it is only science that encourages the search for the truth.

Post Navigation