A great & honest viewpoint of life from an Afghan immigrant. The writing is at times simplistic, but the events and emotions are moving and heartbA great & honest viewpoint of life from an Afghan immigrant. The writing is at times simplistic, but the events and emotions are moving and heartbreaking. Shines an important light on the very real logical & emotional issues faced by many people as they deal with unstable/hateful governments and subsequently try for a new life in America. ...more
There were parts of this book that made me want to stand up and cheer- mainly, the parts about feminism. I so related to this theory that sometimes IThere were parts of this book that made me want to stand up and cheer- mainly, the parts about feminism. I so related to this theory that sometimes I enjoy things I know I shouldn't as a "good" feminist, and sometimes I struggle to keep straight what exactly it is that makes a "good" feminist.
There were issues of race discussed, which makes sense as Roxane Gay is a black woman and deals with those issues. While I didn't find these as relate-able (white girl here), many (not all) were well-thought out and thought-provoking.
There were other parts that were interesting but didn't exactly grab me- most of the Scrabble stuff, and some of the pop culture discussions (mainly ones I hadn't read/watched myself).
I perhaps went in with the wrong view, which is that the book would be centered around feminism. But it wasn't, IMO. It was a discussion of many social justice issues and a modern woman's take on the world. Good, but not what I was expecting. However, their were some truly fantastic parts that, on their own, would deserve 5 stars. Overall a great read and I'd recommend, but with adjusted expectations. ...more
I'll start off by saying that I am not a terribly political person. I voted in the last election, watched some (not all) of the debates, and did someI'll start off by saying that I am not a terribly political person. I voted in the last election, watched some (not all) of the debates, and did some homework before blindly choosing a candidate. I'm not particularly tied to any one party- I think both have strengths & weaknesses, but in general I think our (meaning America's) 2 party system is inefficient and needs an overhaul.
That being said, I'm not quite sure what I expected from this book. I knew who Megan McCain was, and knew that she was somewhat being branded as a new voice for/within the Republican party. I figured if I was going to attempt anything dealing with politics, one of her books would be a good start. While the book does touch on some political topics, it's 90% her experiences and feelings during her father's run for president. The biggest issues I had were not content-based, but rather the editing/flow of the book. Chronological order is always the best order, IMO, so the fact that that timeline wasn't followed made things a bit confusing for me. There were also some little anecdotes that just seemed...out of place. I really didn't feel as though they added anything to the book (stories dealing with her friends, etc, that didn't even occur during the campaign).
She has a very clear, concise writing voice that I enjoyed- I feel as though her personality shown through and everything seemed to be stated very naturally and truthfully (from her perspective, anyway). She was easy to relate to, and felt as though she was the kind of girl who would be easy to talk to and be friends with.
The way she described the town halls and other events made me understand why some people are so into politics- it really seemed to come alive and *matter.* I think that's something that a lot of the country, including myself, lacks. We go through the motions, but there's no true passion for the process. That leaves only the over zealous to get things done, which is not always the best way to handle things.
She spoke a lot about her problems with the way the Republican party is being ran today (I mean come on, she was told she had "stripper hair" and therefore didn't look Republican enough). It makes me sad that many of the things she listed as issues in the 2008 campaign (not focusing on young voters, leaning to far to the Christian Right and ignoring the moderates, etc) and hoped to have corrected by this year's election seemed to have been ignored by the Republican leaders. If anything, they went the opposite direction and steered even more into that far Right direction. It's frustrating when someone is ignored simply because of age or gender or looks (all of which she has experienced), especially when the things she listed comprise the majority of reasons most of the people who voted for Obama leaned left in this past election. I can only hope that someone will wise up and pay attention to what this intuitive young woman has so clearly realized....more
This book was okay, but it could have been about 100 pages shorter. It's about one woman's experience driving from NJ through parts of the continentalThis book was okay, but it could have been about 100 pages shorter. It's about one woman's experience driving from NJ through parts of the continental US/Canada/Alaska on her own. As well as dealing with the drive, she's also stopping to meet her birth parents and then spend time with the adoptive parents who raised her near the end of her trip. The family issues were interesting, and I wish that had been more of a focus.
Instead, it was a lot of "Wow this scenery is beautiful, aw this little town is dying, man I'm sick of people being surprised that I'm doing this trip alone, oh they're not as hard-core/badass/as much of a true biker as I am." Which is fine, but it gets really old after 300 pages.
It seemed ironic to me that a rich white woman with an Ivy league education would pretend to be such an outlaw. She had a "holier than thou" attitude when it came to anyone who was a true "wanderer" or "biker" as she saw it, and had an unnecessary contempt for those who stated they were on a religious mission (even though there were several instances where she was "pleasantly surprised" or thankful that those people didn't preach at her- possibly because she didn't start off telling them how many problems she had with their way of life as she apparently wanted to). I get it, she did something few people do, but let's not pretend that she isn't a privileged person....more
This book had interesting points, but could have been written better. The author laid out points as though she was including the outline into the bookThis book had interesting points, but could have been written better. The author laid out points as though she was including the outline into the book- "in this chapter I'll discuss this, that will be discussed in Chapter X, etc." It was annoying and distracted from the overall focus of the book. The specifics about the people answering the survey/interviewing also got old (Jane Doe, a 43 year old nurse from Delaware with a second husband and four kids responded similarly to Ann, a 26 year old devout Christian from New York with no kids).
But the patterns and attitudes brought up are one so have seen personally, so there is validity to some of the claims. Overall an interesting read but not smoothly written. ...more
This book was good, but not as great as I had hopes for. I appreciate the focus on female nerds (a good answer to my rant about All American Nerd: TheThis book was good, but not as great as I had hopes for. I appreciate the focus on female nerds (a good answer to my rant about All American Nerd: The Story of My People) but still think it paints too small of a picture. I definitely consider myself a book nerd, but I don't fit into the "literary geek" category because I also read crappy, popular books. While I fit many stereotypes given in the book, there were also some 'frenemy' quirks that apply to me (I'm sorry, I don't care what this chick says I think Dane Cook is hilarious). I resent the idea that a person has to like only one section of something to be classified as a geek (I mean, the music section was basically just one genre). It's kind of pathetic that you can only be one kind of geek, or that you have to still fit a fairly small stereotype to be a type geek. I understand the premise of the book and think it's a step in the right direction, but it didn't fulfill my expectations....more
I absolutely LOVED this book. I read it in less than 12 hours, so yay for having a day off work! It was great. The thing I liked best about this bookI absolutely LOVED this book. I read it in less than 12 hours, so yay for having a day off work! It was great. The thing I liked best about this book was that it wasn't "preachy" about feminism in any way. There were times it looked like it could go that way, but IMO the author was very good about highlighting both sides of an issue. If she didn't support something, she mentioned asking other parents why they allowed/supported that something. She may not always have agreed with their response, but for the most part I felt like she presented it respectfully. And she admitted that in several cases she didn't know the right choice, and admitted to acting hypocritically at some points (giving in & buying her daughter the princess Barbie for instance, after she originally said no and made her daughter cry). So this book wasn't a black and white "This is right, this is wrong" situation, it didn't make clear cut "this will screw your daughter up" statements. It was more of an exploration of the spectrum, including the gray areas, and looking at the possible ways the media & marketing & general treatment of young girls can affect them as people, both now & in the future as they grow up. There's so much I want to comment on, so I'm going to just start pulling quotes from the book. I marked a TON of pages, so this could be a long one y'all.
-She mentions a 2006 survey where school-aged girls reported feeling a "paralyzing pressure to be "perfect"":
Rather than living the dream, then, those girls were straddling a contradiction: struggling to fulfill all the new expectations we have of them without letting go of the old ones. ...they now feel that they must not only "have it all" but be it all: Cinderella and Supergirl. Aggressive and agreeable. Smart and stunning.
I found this to be very true. It's not enough that a girl is intelligent if she's not (today's society version of) pretty- she's then (often, not all but often) considered as undersirable romatically. So in order to be attractive to a potential partner, she also has to be physically alluring and then she'll be considered the "whole package." It definitely can be stressful, in my personal experience, to feel like if you excel in one area (ie school or sports or what have you) that it's not enough if you aren't also the stereotypical "girly girl." As Susan Douglas is quoted:
We can excel in school, play sports, go to college, aspire to- and get- jobs previously reserved for men, be working mothers, and so forth. But in exchange we must obsess about our faces, weight, breast size, clothing brands, decorating, perfectly calibrated child-rearing; about pleasing men and being envied by other women.
-Much time is spent examining the Disney Princess products & general theme. She also visits the American Girl store, which would seem like the antithesis of the Princess. And while she isn't particularly fond of either, she does realize why some (most, in my personal experience) accept and even encourage these brands:
It is a peculiar inversion: the simplicity of American Girl is expensive, while the finery of Princess comes cheap. In the end, though, the appeal to parents is the same: both lines tacitly promise to keep girls young and "safe" from sexualization.
So while these brands may be, on one had, too expensive to be reasonable and on the other, too limiting...at the end of the day they feel safer than (very few) other options that are out there.
-There is an entire chapter dedicated to how just about damn near everything marketed for girls is pink. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of pink. I do like it, occasionally, but it seems that if you wear it you are proclaiming you are ultra-feminine...and I'm not. So it feels almost like lying if I wear it. She examines the marketing purpose of creating such a division, and also gives some background on how things were a hundred years ago:
...in the era before Maytag, all babies wore white as a practical matter, since the only way of getting clothes clean was to boil them. What's more, both boys and girls wore what was thought of as gender-neutral dresses. When nursery colors were introduced, pink was actually considered the more masculine hue, a pastel version of red, which was associated with strength. Blue, with its intimations of the Virgin Mary, constancy, and faithfulness, symbolized femininity.
But why does color even matter? Why is it gender-specific at all? It's suggested here that again, it's all a marketing purpose- so you have to buy two. Think about it- you have a daughter. You spoil her with everything that is girly...so therefore sparkly & pink. Then you have a son. Even if he's okay with using a pink baseball glove...the kids on the playground are probably going to clue him in that that's not the social norm by, say, tormenting him (either physically or verbally). This makes everyone upset, so you go buy him a brown "boy" glove.
-She also visits a children's beauty pageant- thing Toddlers and Tiaras (no, really- one of the families she spoke with was on the show). One of the main families she talked with had a disabled son in addition to their pageant daughter, and this was one of the reasons they began pageanting in the first place. The parents felt so guilty for having to focus so much time & energy on their son that they wanted to make up for by supporting their daughter in pageants- after all, you get told you're super special (if you win) and a tiara, just like a...say it with me...princess!
And isn't that, at ist core, what the princess fantasy is about for all of us? "Princess" is how we tell little girls that they are special, precious. "Princess" is how we express our aspirations, hopes, and dreams for them. "Princess" is the wish that we could protect them from pain, that they would never know sorrow, that they will live happily ever after ensconced in lace and innocence.
It's a sweet idea, and it's completely understandable why this appeals to both parents and children. But the thing people seem to want to forget is that it's just not logical. You can't protect them forever. They do grow up and they make mistakes and they do get hurt. The Princess fantasy might make for some nice memories and fuzzy feelings as a kid, but what if it's leading to life screwing them that much harder later?
-Like I mentioned in my first paragraph, though, this book did look at other things besides the stereotypical girly labels like Princess and Barbie...and she found issues there. Even in children's books written specifically to shy away from stereotypes, there is a resounding attitude of "anti-boy" in these supposedly "pro-girl" books. This is a problem I have long had with "feminism" and why I usually hesitate to read any books like this. Orenstein asks if this is really a better lesson to be teaching girls:
Step out of line, and you end up solo or, worse, sailing crazily over a cliff to your doom.
I have never understood why part of being an "empowered woman" meant shunning men...glad I'm finally hearing someone else ask that question as well.
-She also touched on the appeal of Twilight which, although embraced by women of all ages, was actually written for young adults (so ie teens). It has been critiqued for many reasons, part of it being that the main relationship between Bella & Edward is really dependent and (supposedly) mirrors abusive relationships. Bella lives solely for Edward, and goes into zombie mood when he leaves (sorry for that spoiler if you haven't read it :p). But PO nails a big part of the appeal- Bella isn't special. She isn't obsessed with her looks (even though Edward thinks she's beautiful & says others do to, she doesn't feel that way), she isn't at the top of the class, she doesn't have an awesome hobby, she doesn't play sports- she's completely average. While envying the beauty and specialness shouldn't be the main focus in life, it is a part of life for girls especially. And to finally have a character who isn't a princess or anything else special is a relief- especially when she still manages to snag the most want-able guy in town. PO also suggests that the fact that Bella & Edward don't have sex (until marriage) is a a welcome relief in a world that often screams SEX SEX SEX.
-There was also a section about young actresses/singers that I really enjoyed. She looked at all the recent situations of these beautiful, innocent young girls and their transformations into crazy whores- Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus, etc. PO suggests it is in fact the we (as in society) do place so much value on proving the innocence (speaking sexually) of these girls that once they grow up (which they all will) and begin to try to deal with their own sexuality that we feel betrayed and brand them as slutty. And being sexy or even having sex isn't neccesarily slutty. I think a big part of it is that parents freak out when stars grow up because it's a reminder that their own children are growing up. Hopefully not as fast as those in the limelight, but still. Honestly the outfits, etc that most of these stars are judged on aren't too much more risque than what I've seen people their age where here in the "normal" world. The difference is that these girls don't have their pictures taken and published for the entire world to judge over coffee.
-You can't deny it:
Even as I wish it were otherwise, even as I fight for it to be otherwise- I, too, know in my heart that how girls look does make a difference in how the world percieves them, and the more progress they make in other areas, the more that seems to be true.
The phases of our lives have become strangely blurred, as girls try to look like adult women and adult omen primp and preen and work out like crazy in order to look like girls.
-Comparison of the New Year's resolutions of a girl at the end of the nineteenth century to NYR's of a girl at the end of the twentieth century.
19th: Resolved: to think before speaking. To work seriously. To be self-restrained in conversations and actions. Not to let my thoughts wander. To be dignified. Interest myself more in others.
20th: I will try to make myself better in any way I possibly can...I will lose weight, get new lenses, already got new haircut, good makeup, new clothes and accessories.
-The dreaded "fat" feeling...
Although my body and I have reached if not peace, at least a state of adente, "fat" remains how I experience anger, dissatisfaction, disappointment. I feel "fat" if I can't master a new task at work. I feel "fat" if I can't please those I love. "Fat" is how I blame myself for my failures. "Fat" is how I express my anxieties. A psychologist once told me, "Fat is not a feeling." If only it were that simple.
-Catherine Steiner-Adair's opinion on telling girls they are beautiful (she is the director of eating disorders education and prevention at the Klarman Eating Disorders Center in Mass.); I found it interesting.
""You're beautiful" is not something you want to say over and over to your daughter, because it's not something you want her to think is so important. That said,...there are times when it is important to say it: when she's messy or sweaty, when she's not dressed up, so that she gets a sense that there is something naturally beautiful about her as a person. And it's also important to connect beauty and love. To say 'I love you so much. Everything about you is beautiful to me- you are beautiful to me.' That way you're not just objectifying her body."
-When Hilary Clinton was in the running for President, I often felt like she wasn't treated fairly. There was so much emphasis on the fact that she was a woman that it was ridiculous. And while everyone may say that Obama's race was a factor...I argue that there were just as many sexist jokes as there were racist ones. The part that killed me was that even in forums Hillary got questions that would never have been asked of a male canidate- for instance the "Pearls or diamonds?" preference question. WTF does that have to do with anything.
I had often wondered whether Clinton was a symbol of how far we'd come as women or how far we had to go.
And to go along with that,
Yet though we tell little girls "You can be anything you want to be," we know, from life experience, that that is still not quite true. At least not without a price.
And yet another esample...that basically describes me to a tee-
This is the kind of thing all the books about raising smart, strong girls fail to mention. Frequently, after I have given a lecture on the topic myself, someone has commented, "My daughter does speak up and stand up for herself, and she doesn't wear trampy clothes or caked on makeup. And do you know what she gets called? A bitch.
Again, it's sailing off the cliff...
-I've been searching for this myself...
an authentic, unconflicted balance of feminism and femininity, one that will sustain rather than constrain them.
-A perspective of the online world and how teens (although sadly some adults too) end up treating their identity from a researcher at Children's Digital Media Center: I sadly have to agree, and have thought about this more each time I wonder how people gain tons of followers on blogger/tumblr/etc.
The self, Manago said, becomes a brand, something to be marketed to others rather than developed from within. Instead of intimates with whom you interact for the sake of exchange, friends become your consumers, an audience for whom you perform.
-Acknowledging the hypocrisy of it all:
Perhaps that high-wire act, as much as anything, reveals the lie of girls' popular culture: if the sexualization and attention to appearance truly "empowered" girls, they would emerge from childhood with more freedom and control over their sexuality. Instead, they seem to have less: they have learned that sexiness confers power- unless you use it (or are perceived as using it). The fastest way to take a girl down remains, as ever, to attack her looks or sexual behavior.
How many times have we as females seen, felt, or- let's be honest- dealt this kind of judgement and hurt?
-A good basic principal to round it all out:
The point...is not so much to raise children who are cynical about the media as ones who are skeptical.
This is something that I hope I can portray to my children once I have them. Hell, it's something I am still trying to live myself. ...more
I bought this book a few months ago because I am an Army Veteran Wife and searching for a way to still recognize our ties to the military. I thought tI bought this book a few months ago because I am an Army Veteran Wife and searching for a way to still recognize our ties to the military. I thought the book would be about the struggles that Army Wives go through, but it was more of a poorly written auto-biography. The author went into great detail to remember dates, names, and decorations. But the heart of the book was just missing IMO. I was expecting to read about the feelings and emotions that go along with the Army lifestyle. Instead I got a very black & white outline of the major stops of one woman's life as an Army Wife. There was no true plot, no climax or even conclusion. It was just "Okay this is what we did and when." Too dry and not well written, plus horrible grammar/syntax mistakes that made it really hard for me to focus on story. Overall I don't really recommend this book, it kind of felt like a big waste of time....more
I started reading this book because I recently found out that I have Scottish ancestry. I really want to learn more about this country that I come froI started reading this book because I recently found out that I have Scottish ancestry. I really want to learn more about this country that I come from. This wasn't the most complete history, but it was a great introduction. It went through the physical landscape, political history, religious affiliation, traditions, and popular culture hitting the main highlights of each.
There were tons of quotes I loved, which you could probably tell if you saw my tumblr as I was reading. Lots of interesting tidbits that I didn't know. For instance, did you know that Scotch is actually just whiskey made in Scotland (where it's actually spelled whisky)? Or the story behind the Scottish thistle? Or that even though the game is often credited to the Dutch, it's actually the Scottish who came up with golf (they added the wholes- the Dutch version basically seems like a big game of cricket). I can't wait to one day make it over there. It's only a hop, skip, & boat ride from Ireland, where hubs is determined that we will go one day (that's where his family is from). ...more
Bruce Feiler is a guy who has spent his life walking...literally. He travels all over the world, and is married to a woman with an international businBruce Feiler is a guy who has spent his life walking...literally. He travels all over the world, and is married to a woman with an international business. They get married and have two adorable twin girls (Eden & Tybee, I applaud the thought that went into their names).
Bruce's world is turned upside down when he learns that he has a rare and often terminal caner in his leg. He is faced with months of chemotherapy and an intense surgery...which still leaves him with a small chance of living past the next year. Not only does this lead him to contemplate his own life, but what the lives of his daughters would be like without him.
He comes up with the idea of the Council of Dads. He chooses 6 men in his life who he thinks are a big enough part of him that they can express his voice to his daughters if he isn't around to do it. His wife Linda helps him and they choose the candidates.
Overall, I think this is a sweet idea. I can't personally imagine having 6 close friends, honestly, because I'm such a loser, so in that aspect it seems a little dramatic. But again, I think it's a sweet thought. There is a chapter per friend, explaining why he chose this particular man and the man's reaction to being asked to be in the Council of Dads.
Bruce also begins to search back through the dads in his own life. His father, his grandfather, even his doctor who turns out to be a great source of strength over his "lost year" (what he calls his year of chemo/surgery/recovery).
All of that is dealable. A little outside of my comfort zone, but dealable.
The part I honestly couldn't stand were his letters to others. Each month or so he apparently sent out a mass e-mail to his friends/family to say thank you for all that was done for him/his family and update his/his family's condition. This are so damn syrupy sweet that I just couldn't stand it. It was too descriptive and melodramatic and just kind of sickening. I know that makes me a horrible person, but it was.
It was a decent book, I'm sure others probably think it's the sweetest thing ever, but I didn't find it as heartwarming as I had hoped. It seemed a little fake and overplayed, which just isn't my style....more
I had very high hopes for American Nerd. Even after ready the fairly crappy reviews on Goodreads, I thought I should give it a chance. After all, I'veI had very high hopes for American Nerd. Even after ready the fairly crappy reviews on Goodreads, I thought I should give it a chance. After all, I've spent pretty much my entire life being a a nerd/outcast in one way or another. This book would be made for me, right? With a title like American nerd, I thought I couldn't lose. And the main complaint was that it was male focused, but I since I typically prefer the company of males I thought I could handle that too.
I'm going to list my complaints about this book, because I think that will be easier.
From the description of the book and introduction in the first few pages, I thought I was going to get a history of the nerd culture. The first few chapters of the book did go into slight detail about where the word "nerd" originated, but that was about it. I personally care less about the semantic of the word itself and more about the actual meaning behind it, which I felt was not examined deeply. Fairly quickly the author goes into an almost rant-ish, angry mentality about how Jews and Asians are the most typically and stereotypically nerdy, and why nerds gravitate towards these groups (if they don't actually belong to them already). As a protestant Christian who has very little interest in Asian history, I found this somewhat interesting but also untrue, at least for me. I think if it had been presented in a "Well this is the majority" and then there had been even a slight dip into nerds who varied from this stereotype, I could have dealt with it but the way it was written made it sound like if this wasn't applicable to you then you were a "fake nerd." There was a fairly lengthy portion about what created a wannabe nerd, or fake nerds (I think he had a specific name for them, but I don't remember). Apparently being a nerd is cool now and there are people who "play the part" so to speak. While I agree with this to a certain extent, I did not agree with his definition of them...but probably because I don't agree with his definition of a nerd completely either. Nugent seems to think that in order to be a nerd you have to have be a Jewish penis-bearer who played role playing games as a child. Throughout the entire book, it always seems to circle back to his childhood friends who played Dungeons & Dragons with him, and why role playing games are attractive to nerds. I definitely agree these people are nerds, but they are not the only category and were vastly over represented in this book. He literally has almost NO mention of females in his book. At the beginning he breaks the word "nerd" down into 2 separate categories, and states that one is mostly male while the other is fairly evenly split into males and females. Then he quotes "Pride and Prejudice" by referring to one of it's female characters for a bit. The only other mention of female nerds is one small subsection who enjoy male on male anime.
Here are what I think the problems were:
The book was misrepresented. As I stated in the previous #1, I thought I was reading a history/examination of "nerd culture." Instead what I got was one man's opinion based on his experience as an awkward Jewish boy who played role playing games as a kid. This may be interesting to someone who shared his experiences, but it is not a full and complete (or even half complete IMO) examination of the full spectrum of nerds. Towards the end of the book he begins talking about Asperger's Syndrome. Several times he uses "we" and seems to have a personal tie to the syndrome, which makes me wonder if he does have Asperger's. It would make more sense to me if he did, because once I started thinking of him as having it his style was more understandable. I have read another book by an "Aspie" as he calls it, and I feel that this disorder has an effect on writing styles (as any personality characteristic does). I personally felt the flow was incredibly choppy and odd, but it's possibly he has the syndrome and the flow made sense in his brain. He left out several genres in my opinion. There was NO mention of bibliophiles (book nerds). Seriously? I assure you, when you'd rather be inside reading instead of playing kickball or stealing your mom's makeup, kids call you a nerd. Also there was no examination of video game players- in fact Nugent seemed to scorn video games in the one mention of a convention that he went too. Let me tell you, I've met some Halo players and they are NERDY. I'm not saying it as a bad thing, I'm just calling a spade a spade. It's possible I notice these things because I'm a female, and I would venture to say based on my experience that these genres are typically more female friendly than others (role playing games, for instance). I think it's very possible that age plays a factor here. The groups he went into detail with were not ones I was familiar with at all, and all seem much older. I think again he was focusing on his own experience and not reaching out to the new things he wasn't as comfortable with. He kept randomly bringing up stories from his friends that he played D&D with as a child. Which is fine, I understand and often enjoy the desire to make a (supposedly) research based story personal with antidotes. However, it seemed he mostly said "This is X, he's a nerd because Y, and here's his crappy childhood story." I think he was showing how nerds often come from dysfunctional homes, which I agree with to a point. But it seemed rude and disheartening, especially since he didn't actually volunteer much about his own childhood IMO. I would have been upset if I was one of those people.