It's finals week at last. By Friday, I will be work and school free for a couple of weeks. Huzzah!
It's strange...now that I have full access to the internet again, I'm not all that excited. I rarely talk on AIM anymore...for some reason it doesn't bring me the joy it once did. Oh, but don't be sad...I still love SG and all of you fantabulous people!
I spent all morning working on my 3D final. I'm in class now with everything prepared, waiting for the professor to call my name so I can show her my stuff and get the Hell out of here. Unfortunately she's calling people alphabetically which means I'll be here for awhile, since my last name begins with S. Son of a bitch!
I really just want a plain bagel with cream cheese. That would make my day complete.
In other news, I thought about something recently that doesn't make any sense. Actually I thought about it a long time ago, but then I was reminded of it again when I saw a sign for the bathrooms at the Fine Arts gallery.
For men and women's bathrooms, you find the universal symbol for a man and a woman, respectively. Makes sense, right? But these symbols are accompanied by another symbol, which leads me to believe that bathrooms are designed for men, women, and transgendered disabled midgets.
Note how much smaller the disabled person's symbol is, and that it doesn't wear a dress when accompanied with the woman symbol.
I know it probably seems like I'm picking fun at the situation, but I'm actually kind of irritated about this. It almost makes me feel like whoever came up with the idea was too lazy to add the dress, or too concerned with saving money to make the symbol the same size as the others. I feel like it belittles disabled people in general.
Also, I think the idea of the woman symbol having the dress is somewhat outdated, as well. I've seen plenty of men in drag, and chicks that haven't worn a dress since they were in gradeschool. But then again, I suppose it's easiest to stick with the things we're familiar with, plus you can't have both figures looking the same or you'd have a lot of surprised men walking in on women sticking quarters into the tampon machine, and women walking in on men pissing in the urinals. Utter chaos indeed. Still though...I'd hate to think that all it takes is a dress to define a woman, or a lack thereof to define a man.
Besides, men in dresses are sexy.
I guess this will conclude my rant for the day.
It's strange...now that I have full access to the internet again, I'm not all that excited. I rarely talk on AIM anymore...for some reason it doesn't bring me the joy it once did. Oh, but don't be sad...I still love SG and all of you fantabulous people!
I spent all morning working on my 3D final. I'm in class now with everything prepared, waiting for the professor to call my name so I can show her my stuff and get the Hell out of here. Unfortunately she's calling people alphabetically which means I'll be here for awhile, since my last name begins with S. Son of a bitch!
I really just want a plain bagel with cream cheese. That would make my day complete.
In other news, I thought about something recently that doesn't make any sense. Actually I thought about it a long time ago, but then I was reminded of it again when I saw a sign for the bathrooms at the Fine Arts gallery.
For men and women's bathrooms, you find the universal symbol for a man and a woman, respectively. Makes sense, right? But these symbols are accompanied by another symbol, which leads me to believe that bathrooms are designed for men, women, and transgendered disabled midgets.
Note how much smaller the disabled person's symbol is, and that it doesn't wear a dress when accompanied with the woman symbol.
I know it probably seems like I'm picking fun at the situation, but I'm actually kind of irritated about this. It almost makes me feel like whoever came up with the idea was too lazy to add the dress, or too concerned with saving money to make the symbol the same size as the others. I feel like it belittles disabled people in general.
Also, I think the idea of the woman symbol having the dress is somewhat outdated, as well. I've seen plenty of men in drag, and chicks that haven't worn a dress since they were in gradeschool. But then again, I suppose it's easiest to stick with the things we're familiar with, plus you can't have both figures looking the same or you'd have a lot of surprised men walking in on women sticking quarters into the tampon machine, and women walking in on men pissing in the urinals. Utter chaos indeed. Still though...I'd hate to think that all it takes is a dress to define a woman, or a lack thereof to define a man.
Besides, men in dresses are sexy.
I guess this will conclude my rant for the day.
VIEW 19 of 19 COMMENTS
You see them often in parking lots as the closest spaces to the premises, because those afflicted with these biant posteriors have trouble travelling and often resort to rolling motions to accomplish any semblance of forward travel.
Similarly, consider the oft-misinterpreted "Pedestrian Crossing" signs. What people don't realize is these are actually "Terrorist Crossings." If you look closely at the sign, you can clearly see that the man is holding a gun to the woman's back and forcing her to carry his bomb in her bag as he tells her, "Just keep walking, keep walking" and looks about shifty-eyed.
As a sidenote to the men in dresses are sexy comment, I was a champion drag queen my first year of college. That was before the Grand Cataclysm of Bob Vila, though.
[Edited on Jan 01, 2006 10:59PM]
[Edited on Jan 01, 2006 11:03PM]