Category Archives: opinion

The Perils of Being “Thirteen”

Ross and I went to see the film “Thirteen” last week, and found it deeply disturbing, as I expected. At intermission (there is always an intermission in Italian cinemas), Ross said “It seems exaggerated,” and many of the critics agree with her. “Well, thank god I don’t have to worry about most of that stuff in small-town Italy,” I thought to myself.

Ross was most puzzled by the scenes of the protagonist cutting herself. I couldn’t explain it, so when we got home I looked up “self-mutilation” in Mary Pipher’s “Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Lives of Adolescent Girls,” which I probably need to re-read now. Pipher says that this is a new phenomenon (as of the 1990s), and postulates that it’s a way of releasing powerful emotions that teenage girls don’t otherwise know how to channel.

Then Ross told me she knows someone who does it. For privacy reasons, I won’t go into details, but I can understand why it happens in this particular case. I just wish I knew how to get this girl help.

Ross has an instinct to help people, to be kind, and to offer loyal and supportive friendship. She worries about people in trouble. I understand this: even when I was an outcast geek myself, I wanted to help other outcasts, make friends, be kind, show them that the whole world wasn’t against them – even when, sometimes, I didn’t particularly like them, either. But Ross is facing far scarier problems than I ever did. Was I just oblivious, or is the world really that much worse than it was?

There were drugs when I was a kid – my yearbook from the International School Bangkok for 1971 has an “In Memoriam” page listing about 15 kids, all drug overdoses. Some of my peers began having sex at age 13, though the American norm for my generation seems to have been closer to 15 or 16. So I’m not surprised to hear that some of Ross’ classmates who are dating older boys are feeling pressured to have sex when they’re not ready for it. Fortunately, the Italian average for the “first time” is around 16 or 17, and condoms are very much the norm in Italian culture.

But there’s worse. In 6th and 7th grade, Ross had a classmate who ended up on the street one night. Her parents were divorced, her mother had a relapse into some sort of addiction, and turned on her daughter, threatening her. The girl ran out into the street, snatching up (thank god) her cellphone, from which she was able to call another classmate for help. But that wasn’t the first time. She admitted that there had been several other incidents where she had wandered the streets at night for hours, but had been too ashamed to tell anyone. The mother of course lost custody, but the father didn’t want the girl, so she ended up in an orphanage.

Situations like this are heartbreaking; how is a sensitive, caring teenager like Ross to cope? How do I advise her to even try?


Interesting comment on “Thirteen:” “when i saw this film, i said ‘holy shit’. i’ve been an Evie since i was eleven, my parents were never around so i had to get my attention somehow, you know. god only knows how many girls i’ve ruined. the film is raw, everything in it is possible when you’re eleven or twelve. the only thing bad was that they didn’t show the truth about evie: girls like us always end up alone.”

Gay Marriage

“Polls suggest that acceptance of gays in the United States, the most religious industrialized society in the world, extends only up to the chapel steps.”

“I know a lot of people who want to give all the rights and privileges to gay couples that married people have, but they don’t want to change the traditional meaning of the term marriage,” said Norval D. Glenn, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas who specializes in the demography of the family. “We’re more traditional in how we define marriage in this country than is the case in most of the Western world.”

From “Why America Has Gay Marriage Jitters” By ELISABETH BUMILLER, New York Times, August 10, 2003

Oh, get over it!

“Traditional” marriage as defined by most Americans is “one man, one woman.” Add 2.5 kids, and you have the traditional nuclear family. If you’re American, tell me: how many people do you know who actually grew up in a traditional nuclear family? At age 10, I was one of the first on my block to have divorced parents. But, by now, I hardly know anyone of my generation whose parents didn’t divorce; America has the world’s highest divorce rate. So much for the “sanctity” of marriage. Are the straights worried that the gays might be better at staying married than we are? They might well be. It seems to me that, when you have to fight most of the culture around you and city hall to obtain something, you’re more likely to make it work.

Dec 3, 2003

In the New York Times op/ed page, Nov 26, Harvey Fierstein wrote: “What is it with you people, anyway? Are you so insecure about the way you handle marriage that you’re scared gay folk will show you up? Trust me, we will make as much of a mess out of matrimony as you do. Just give us a chance.”

May 3, 2004

Mike L. tells me about the Netherlands: “Gay marriages have official status since a few years. Gay couples can get married in the town hall just like hetero couples. The difference between “just living together” and being fully married aren’t that much anyway. Only real differences are that when you have kids, the father has to explicitly go to town and officially “recognize” the kid, otherwise the offspring will receive the mother’s last name instead of the father’s, and when one dies, the other may not be the only beneficiary so that you’ll have to make arrangements (usually a will or a living-together-contract) for your partner. (In our case, the house automatically becomes property of the one who lives longest, and most of the mortgage will be paid by the insurance when one of us dies).

The tax office never cared much about marriage anyway, you can just check a box on the tax form in order to have the tax office treat you as ‘partners’ (so you can share expenses and income which will in general save money).”

This pragmatic approach to human relationships seems to me a good solution. It allows every couple, straight or gay, to determine their own terms of commitment, both personal and financial, with a flexibility that realistically meets the needs of today’s rapidly-changing society

Some wise words

Reading Science Fiction

Amazon is great, but to discover something new, it helps to have a real (independent!) bookstore with a discerning owner. Thanks to one such, in an airport of all places (La Guardia, I think it was), I discovered Ted Chiang. In a ten-year career (so far), he has only written a few short stories, winning a Nebula Award with the very first, and most of them are amazing. It’s a rare writer who has challenging ideas and writes about them extremely well. Very highly recommended.

Stories of Your Life and Others by Ted Chiang – Amazon UK

One thing to be said for forced bed rest: I’ve had lots of time to read. First was a collection of Philip K. Dick short stories, including “The Minority Report.” As has happened with a number of Dick stories, the author’s initial idea was intriguing, but the movie was actually a better story.

I have read a lot of science fiction in my lifetime, from the early classics on. It’s interesting to consider the trends and technologies happening today that early sci-fi writers never contemplated. For example, there are lots of stories about gigantic central computers going mad, killing people, taking over planets or spaceships, and occasionally being useful. But I don’t recall a single story featuring personal computers as the ubiquitous tools that we all use today.

Most of the authors even more glaringly failed to consider the cultural changes likely to take place within their own lifetimes, let alone over several centuries to come. Feminism completely escaped Philip K. Dick (even though it was well underway before he died); most of his female characters are secretaries and/or wives, who spend their time tucking the children into bed and making coffee for the men.

One author who has demonstrated real foresight is Norman Spinrad. In “A World Between,” published in 1979, he described the World Wide Web, and even called it ‘the Galactic Web.’ “Little Heroes” (1987) is about the music industry’s final solution to the problem of dealing with temperamental artists: computer-generated stars. Now that we’ve seen what can be done, with Gollum in “The Two Towers,” this doesn’t seem very far off. “Pictures at 11” (1994) is about a gang of terrorists taking over a TV station in Los Angeles; that, too, seems likely to come true any day now.

David Brin is perhaps the greatest science fiction author alive. His Uplift series is set in the far future, when dolphins and chimpanzees have been genetically ‘uplifted’ to be man’s sapient peers, in a universe populated by hundreds of similarly uplifted species. Brin is literally a rocket scientist, with a PhD in astrophysics, yet he does not fall into the Asimov trap of being far better at science than characters. One of the joys of the Uplift novels is that Brin creates and describes alien cultures which are completely non-human, yet convincingly motivated by their own biologies and cultures (my favorite example is the exploding priest).

I have re-started reading Brin’s “The Transparent Society,” published in 1998, subtitled “Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom?” This is non-fiction. Though I haven’t read it all the way through yet, Brin’s thesis seems to be that the privacy genie is already out of the bottle: governments and corporations have a great deal of private information about us stored in databases (where it’s subject to pilfering and abuse), and we are increasingly in the lenses of security cameras wherever we go. Brin suggests that the best defense is an open society, where we citizens can in turn oversee governments and corporations, to ensure that our data is not abused.

Norman Spinrad’s site

Buy from Amazon:

UK: Norman SpinradDavid BrinTed Chiang

US: Norman SpinradDavid BrinTed Chiang

Sports Fanatics

My last two pieces, on fan violence and dyed hair, between them spurred more discussion than anything I’ve yet written in this newsletter. With the permission of the authors, I will quote some of their very thoughtful replies, with further thoughts of my own.

American readers are baffled by the need for the safety measures at soccer games, and, as John Francini says, “look upon the tribal behavior of European soccer fans with an unalloyed mixture of dismay, confusion, and stark blinking incomprehension. While there are rare occasions where Americans will do stupid things in the aftermath of a football game (like the idiots who rampaged through the streets of Oakland after the Raiders got thoroughly trounced in last month’s Superbowl), by and large fans of two opposing teams do not go around taunting one another en masse with songs, chants, et cetera. Nor do they beat each other up, even if the Raiders fans do dress themselves up in the most outrageous getups. And they certainly don’t need to be separated by team, as soccer fans seem to.”

John asked: “Just what are the common sports in Europe besides soccer, and how popular are they in comparison to it? Here, we have several different sports to pay attention to during the year, so American football is just one of many: baseball in the spring and summer, football in the autumn, basketball and hockey in the late fall and winter.”

He’s got a point. The sports that John mentions are pretty much equally important in America, and all of them are played in major national leagues. Many Americans are knowledgeable and passionate about more than one sport. Europeans don’t have so many to choose from. Aside from soccer, there’s cricket and rugby (in the UK); I don’t know much about these, but suspect that their fan bases are not nearly as large as for soccer. In Italy, we have a basketball league, but its fan base is very, very small. Perhaps having more sports to think about keeps Americans from becoming dangerously obsessed with one sport and one team.

Rich Levin raised an interesting point: “The US is usually criticized for a more violent culture: movies, TV, etc. and the higher crime rates. But you never see anything equivalent at sporting events. Maybe we take our violence more seriously in the US.”

Some American sports, e.g. football and hockey, seem to be inherently more violent than soccer, although this is to some extent the ritualized violence that I mentioned before (wrestling is even more ritualized, apparently). Perhaps these sports are therefore more effective at venting fan violence vicariously than is soccer.

In “Bowling for Columbine,” his documentary film about American gun culture, Michael Moore ponders the opposite phenomenon: why is it that America’s neighbor, Canada, has similar gun ownership rates, yet a far lower incidence of gun murders than the US?

Several readers made the explicit link (which I had not) between ardent sports fandom and religious belief (John Sanders reminds me that ‘fan’ derives from ‘fanatic’). Rick Freeman points out that both seem to be a mystery to me. He’s right about that; I am profoundly atheistic about sports and religion. Though I feel no need for either in my own life, I appreciate that sports and/or religion contribute a great deal to others’ lives. But I find it sad and baffling that something which is beautiful and inspiring for many, in the hands of a few fan(atic)s is used, often brutally, against non-believers or members of opposing faiths.


Stadium violence is once again on the collective mind in Italy. A newscast quantified the problem apallingly: maintaining order in the stadiums costs 32 million Euros per major match. A new law has been passed making it possible to arrest hooligans on the basis of photo or TV evidence – if they can be caught within 36 hours of the incident. The law also provides for changing schedules, or completely suspending games for up to a month, in response to anything unusually horrible.

National Self-Esteem

Can a country have an inferiority complex? Certainly the US strongly feels its own superiority, and this is reflected in its media. As pointed out in a Doonesbury cartoon years ago, a lot of American advertising uses the word “America” to sell products that have nothing to do with nationality. Mike Doonesbury asks: “Why are Americans so insecure about themselves? Do any other countries make ads that are so relentlessly chauvinistic?”

As a matter of fact, they don’t – at least not that I’ve seen. But Mike had the wrong end of the stick: the driving force here is not insecurity, but pride. Americans have a strong sense of what it means to be American, and it’s the kind of warm, fuzzy feeling that makes advertisers want to create a link (in the public mind) between their product and “being American.”

Watching American TV, you might get the idea that American is not only the best thing to be, it’s the only thing to be. The American media tends to ignore the rest of the world, at least until forced by events to sit up and take notice.

To a point, this is understandable; most news organizations report to a local/national audience whose interest in faraway events is limited. In reports of, say, an airline disaster, the local news will say that “x number of people from our country were involved, x others;” I’ve seen this in both the UK and Italy. The disasters that no one local is likely to be involved in get short shrift indeed: “x thousand people killed in floods in Bangladesh. End of story.”

But the United States is the leading player on the world stage, so other countries’ news media report extensively on America’s affairs, both internal and external. What happens in America affects the world. (This, by the way, is a huge responsibility, but one that most Americans seem unaware that they carry.)

Italy, on the other hand, seems to have an inferiority complex. It’s the world’s fifth or sixth largest economy, yet Italians seem to feel that Italy doesn’t really deserve much of a position on the world stage. Maybe I’m just imagining things, but I get this impression most strongly from the Italian news media.

The US public probably would not have noticed that Italy sent troops to the Gulf War, but the Italian TV news gave “our boys” lots of coverage, partly, I suppose, because it was easier and cheaper to interview them than soldiers of other nationalities. But sometimes it felt as if the Italian journalists were like the nerdy kid who tries too hard to get noticed by the rest of the class: “See, see! We’re there, too!”

A couple of Italian pilots managed to do something newsworthy: they were shot down, captured, and beat up by the Iraqis. The Italian press was delirious: finally, we have something momentous to say about Italy’s participation in the war.

Italy’s lack of national self-esteem shows in other ways. There are some things that everyone acknowledges the Italians are good at: food, design, leather. But beyond that, many Italians are convinced that the Americans do it better. Back when I was with Incat Systems, a small Italian company bent on conquering the global CD-R software market, we had trouble selling our software to Italians; some thought that software from Italy couldn’t possibly be any good. When half of the company moved to California and the same Easy CD software had an American address on it, more Italians were eager to buy it: it’s American, it must be good. (Whether Italian or American, Easy CD went on to take the lion’s share of the worldwide CD-R market; that’s why Adaptec bought it.)

As far as American customers knew, Easy CD was always an American product. Years later, when Easy CD Creator 4 was released, the suggested retail price (SRP) was $99 in the US, with a $20 rebate. In Europe SRP was set at the after-rebate price of $79. I got vitriolic email from an American: “How dare you give a lower price to foreigners on an American product?”

My response was: “The original Easy CD Creator was the offspring of Easy CD, developed in Italy, and CD Creator, developed in Canada. Even today, of the engineering staff in California, at least half were not born in America. So what exactly is an ‘American’ product?”

Never heard from him again.