Three wonderful essays, Katie! All fascinating and thought-provoking. I'm looking forward to your upcoming work, especially about the "Princess Scientist."
I think I had become aware a long time ago, of the type of discrimination against women you described, but you put it into words so well. The nonsensical expectation that women are really fulfilled only when they take men's paths.
The silliness goes both ways, and Newsweek (I think) said it well probably 20 years ago. Whoever it was, noted that the American educational system treats boys as if they're defective girls. That was years ago, but since then the state-of-mind has extended its way into the rest of American life. Of course! If the educational system is doing that, then it's going to permeate all of society soon enough! Almost as if whatever and whoever are making this happen are trying to blend the sexes into some kind of amorphous, neuter, androgynous creature.
I'm not sure why anyone would want that, when the complementarity of the two sexes -- axs well as the immense VALUE of that complementarity -- is so easy to see and understand! And so crucial to humanity! Might it be so that they're BOTH easier to control?
Wonderful post again, Katie! Thank you for posting it!
I for one am curious to learn more about the breakdown of "the new THC."
As someone who has smoked his fair share of the wacky tabacky, I've noticed a hell of a lot of difference in pre-legal vs. post-legal. I read this stuff with interest although feel a bit out of my depth.
With the new stuff, one smokes much, much more of it, for a diminishing return. "Return" on marijuana use is always difficult to define - what exactly happens? Music sounds different? You concentrate harder on films r books? It's easier to self-hypnotize? Food/wine tastes better? None of these things are quantifiable - but the difference in subjective experience between pre-legal and post-legal is very notable. And yet, the new stuff comes with labels and breakdowns of all sorts of things (as you describe) and says "THCA 25%" or whatever while "THC" is at 0%. What's going on? Is this Frankenweed?
I'd like to smoke some 1970 weed and see what happens. Hell, I'd like to smoke some 1993 weed and compare. But beyond time travel and directly sampling the product, I'm interested in what you describe here, as far as the product itself changing. Curious to learn more. What are they doing to the weed now that was not done before and what is the science that drives it? Is it just profit married to practice and 70+ years from now marijuana start-ups will be seen as sugar/ tobacco executives lying to Congress, etc.? Difficult to tell (especially when everyone lies to Congress.)
Three wonderful essays, Katie! All fascinating and thought-provoking. I'm looking forward to your upcoming work, especially about the "Princess Scientist."
I think I had become aware a long time ago, of the type of discrimination against women you described, but you put it into words so well. The nonsensical expectation that women are really fulfilled only when they take men's paths.
The silliness goes both ways, and Newsweek (I think) said it well probably 20 years ago. Whoever it was, noted that the American educational system treats boys as if they're defective girls. That was years ago, but since then the state-of-mind has extended its way into the rest of American life. Of course! If the educational system is doing that, then it's going to permeate all of society soon enough! Almost as if whatever and whoever are making this happen are trying to blend the sexes into some kind of amorphous, neuter, androgynous creature.
I'm not sure why anyone would want that, when the complementarity of the two sexes -- axs well as the immense VALUE of that complementarity -- is so easy to see and understand! And so crucial to humanity! Might it be so that they're BOTH easier to control?
Wonderful post again, Katie! Thank you for posting it!
I for one am curious to learn more about the breakdown of "the new THC."
As someone who has smoked his fair share of the wacky tabacky, I've noticed a hell of a lot of difference in pre-legal vs. post-legal. I read this stuff with interest although feel a bit out of my depth.
With the new stuff, one smokes much, much more of it, for a diminishing return. "Return" on marijuana use is always difficult to define - what exactly happens? Music sounds different? You concentrate harder on films r books? It's easier to self-hypnotize? Food/wine tastes better? None of these things are quantifiable - but the difference in subjective experience between pre-legal and post-legal is very notable. And yet, the new stuff comes with labels and breakdowns of all sorts of things (as you describe) and says "THCA 25%" or whatever while "THC" is at 0%. What's going on? Is this Frankenweed?
I'd like to smoke some 1970 weed and see what happens. Hell, I'd like to smoke some 1993 weed and compare. But beyond time travel and directly sampling the product, I'm interested in what you describe here, as far as the product itself changing. Curious to learn more. What are they doing to the weed now that was not done before and what is the science that drives it? Is it just profit married to practice and 70+ years from now marijuana start-ups will be seen as sugar/ tobacco executives lying to Congress, etc.? Difficult to tell (especially when everyone lies to Congress.)
linked Notes, Gab, Facebook
nice to see your content again
thank you