I believe you need to surrender the process to your Spirit, release resistance, allow yourself to come into alignment with your divine blueprint, and trust your internal wisdom to take over and inspire you to want the things that are healthy for you.  via Julia.

Whom I take to be a fucking lunatic, in that way so many women are, or try to be. Taking one side of female nature to the extreme and beyond: sweetness of heart, optimism, hopefulness.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Choice Myth — Judith Warner … thinking less about choice, in fact, and make us focus more on contingencies — the objective conditions that drive women’s lives.

The alternative narrative—of constricted horizons, not choice—that might have emerged from recent research has never really made it into the mainstream. It just can’t, it seems, find a foothold …

… our public policy continues to rest upon a fictitious idea, eternally recycled in the media, of mothers’ free choices, and not upon the constraints that truly drive their behavior. Read the rest of this entry »

Mme. Levy reports, “Someone’s just made a fascinating post on beach bags at BlogHer. I think they’re on sale!”

How to shift the thinking. Okay: women online who are connected to business in any way are as co-opted as the next person, it’s silly not to think so. And stupid not to remember.

Don’t be looking to BlogHer, or anywhere else that buys and sells, for any kind of political truth. Or support. Read the rest of this entry »

Catherine Orenstein’s Op-Ed Writing Seminars For Women:

“What I want to suggest to you,” Orenstein continued, “is that the personal and the public interests are not at odds …”

OMSJ … whole life wasted? (opens kitchen drawer)

“ … and the belief that they are mutually exclusive has kept women out of power.” Don’t you want money, credibility, access to aid in your cause? she asked. Read the rest of this entry »

Black holes present a very interesting dilemma to physicists. On the inside is matter of some sort which must be in some configuration, but because gravity is so strong we cannot glean any information about the internal state. However, this also presents a couple of problems: If a black hole has no internal states, then dropping a box of gas into the black hole should result in a net decrease in the entropy of the universe—violating the second law of thermodynamics. If the black hole does have internal states and thus entropy, these cannot be seen from the outside since general relativity demands that the horizon be smooth. Yet we also know that black holes glow (called Hawking radiation) due to particles being produced in pairs at the event horizon. One particle with negative energy falls into the hole, the other with positive energy is radiated away from the hole. Thus the amount of matter in the hole goes down and energy is conserved. These particles are entangled (i.e., their quantum states are inextricably linked) yet as the black hole decays away to nothing the radiation is, in the end, entangled with … nothing. This, combined with the smooth event horizon is paradoxical since we know that quantum mechanics conserves information, yet here information appears to be destroyed. Whenever paradoxes arise in physics it indicates we don’t know something, and in this case that is probably quantum gravity. The reason Hawking and others have been able to predict so much about black holes is that everything happens on the event horizon, where the curvature of space is small and quantum gravity is expected to be irrelevant. Read the rest of this entry »