"This article is from three years ago. I don’t know how you came across it unless you were digging in the New York Times for the 'worst of the NYTimes articles.'"

 A reader named Mary emails me about a post I did yesterday, riffing on a NYT article that, I see now, came out in 2018. The article is titled "Some L.G.B.T. Parents Reject the Names ‘Mommy’ and ‘Daddy’" and it really does seem to be vying for the title of Dumbest NYT Article (especially since it had an atrocious math error). 

The NYT will push old stories in its sidebar or at the bottom of whatever article you are reading, and the linked headline looks fresh. I think that's happening more lately, so I'll be more vigilant going forward. The policy I'm trying to follow is to say something about the date whenever the story isn't new, unless the subject is something that's clearly old.

The quote in the post title is the first item on a list of 4 observations from Mary, so let me give you the rest of her list here rather than put it in the comments at the original post (though I encourage you to go back to that, because I've posted many excellent comments there):

"For people whose only home is a vehicle, the knock is a visceral, even existential, threat. How do you avoid it?"

"You hide in plain sight. Make yourself invisible. Internalize the idea that you’re unwelcome. Stay hypervigilant to avoid trouble. Apart from telling you to clear out, the police can harass you with fines and tickets or get your home-on-wheels towed away to an impound lot.... In the film ['Nomadland'], Fern, played by Frances McDormand, is startled by a knock that interrupts a quiet meal. She looks up with a start and swears. A face hovers at the window, and a fist pounds once, twice, three times on the door. Then comes a gruff voice. 'No overnight parking! You can’t sleep here.' Watching the character’s panic at the sudden sound of a fist hitting her van gave me anxious flashbacks. Then it made me sad. Then I felt angry, because that scene was just too accurate, and I wished it didn’t reflect the reality of how people treat one another.... Bob Wells, 65, has a popular video, 'Avoiding the Knock,' and has been lecturing on the topic for ages.... In a better world, people wouldn’t have to go to such lengths to stay out of sight.... Some towns have created areas where vehicle dwellers can sleep undisturbed." 

From "What ‘Nomadland’ Exposes About Fear in America/People who live in homes-on-wheels should not have to be in constant fear of 'the knock'" by Jessica Bruder (NYT). 

Bruder is the author of the book the movie is based on. And here's the Bob Wells video. (Wells is in the movie.)

By the way, Meade and I saw the movie. It was the first time we'd been out to the movies in over a year. I was disappointed in the experience. The image on the screen looked dim and dull. I would have preferred to watch it on TV (but not enough to subscribe to Hulu, which is what you need to do). 

I would have walked out if I had been alone. Meade, however, loved the movie. He said it was the best movie he'd seen since he saw "How the West Was Won" when he was a kid — and that movie was in Cinerama (true 3-lens Cinerama). "Nomadland" was my most extreme example of seeing a movie with someone whose opinion of it was the opposite of mine. I said, "I hated it." 

FROM THE EMAIL: Kate writes:

It's not a home. It's a car. In the effort to not shame the homeless, this author isn't helping. Be honest. It has no bathroom or kitchen. It's a car. You want to help? Get serious. Build public parking lots with bathrooms. I've lived very rough, and these kind of euphemisms are silly. Shelter, the basic human need, includes a designated place to pee and cook. Any motor vehicle that provides these services is a camper. (I haven't seen Nomadland yet. When it streams on a service I use, I'll gladly watch it.)

The vehicles shown in the movie have something like a kitchen and bathroom. That is, the toilet is a plastic bucket, and there's some device for heating food. Mostly the vehicles are old and quite ordinary vans.  

As for the word "home," there's a very important line in the movie. Asked if she's "homeless," the main character says: "I'm not homeless. I'm just houseless." A similar examination of language occurs when she's asked, "Are you married?" She says, "I am, but my husband died." The issue is, what really matters? What is a home? What is a marriage? People with less may have more.

AND: Mary emails: 

"Ann: Used to be a frequent reader. But, it has become a waste of time trying to understand what you are attempting to cryptically express in your blog posts these days."

"I wish to stay informed, not play clever head games. If you have something to say, just say it. I'm too busy to play your silly exercises. Otherwise, find a more productive use of your and my time. As judge and jury and former reader, I find you in Contempt. Case dismissed. Goodbye!"

Someone wrote that and emailed it to me. It's not a name I recognize, just an email address that's a stray collection of numbers and letters.  

I laughed out loud at "I wish to stay informed, not play clever head games." People read this blog to "stay informed"? That seems ill-informed. And as for that "judge and jury" and "Contempt/Case dismissed" business — that can't be a lawyer. Must just be someone cranked up about my being a (former) law professor and thinking I'm vulnerable to criticisms containing legalistic lingo. 

But you need a specific charge if you want to find me guilty, and what is it? Failure to keep you informed?  Not having something to say and just saying it? The crime of playing clever head games? The infliction of silly exercises? Cryptic expression?

Oh, there I go, asking questions when I don't allow comments. Oddly enough, the complaint you see above never mentions the abolition of comments. Is it possible the person thinks the blog "has become a waste of time" because there are no comments anymore — that the comments used to help him understand what I was cryptically expressing? Ha ha — I can't understand what the emailer is cryptically expressing. And now here I am imposing it on you!

FROM THE EMAIL: Mary writes: 

"The comments section had become very man-centered.... Most posts contained a slur against you, particularly as a woman."

After I added an emailed comment to yesterday's post — "The thing that's complicated about the body positive movement..." — I received email from a woman who does not want to be named:

The person you chose to quote yesterday, Mary, wrote something similar to what I was thinking and considered emailing you about. Th[at] post strikes me as a woman's topic -- aging and acceptance as beauty fades -- and I began to wonder if your blog would become more of a woman's space.

I'm one of the 77 who voted to stop comments and change to email.

She's referring to the poll, the results of which you can see here.

The comments section had become very man-centered. Every post contained someone, often the same someone, disparaging women and how they think. Most posts contained a slur against you, particularly as a woman.

I was considering just not reading the comments anymore when you proposed your change. I restricted my interaction with your blog because I was intimidated by the men. I would not want this comment quoted on your blog. Too soon.

I wrote back — saying she was putting into words something I had been thinking — and she did give me permission.

I wanted to write as a show of support for the change you've made, and also to let you know that I'm curious to see what the blog becomes when some of the toxic interactions are removed.

I'm curious too!

I know you're indomitable....

That's just a public persona. One reason to do the blog is to push myself into the practice of something like indomitability. I actually looked up the word in the OED so I could reflect on whether I possess this quality. It means: "That cannot be overcome or subdued by labour, difficulties, or opposition; unyielding; stubbornly persistent or resolute. Usually approbative."

... but did that constant drip of misogyny impact your blogging? We shall see.

I always thought the misogyny was its own argument against itself, and it could not touch me. That I allowed it meant, to me, that I was strong and didn't need or even care to exclude it. It's reprehensible, but reprehensible on its face. So why not allow it to show its face? I don't think it changed what I wrote, but then again, it could have affected me to see so many comments saying things like "Who cares?" whenever I put up posts like the "body positivity" one you and Mary responded to. And if women, particularly, feel intimidated — your word — about mixing with the men in the comments, then everything is skewed. 

So, yes, we shall see. And thanks for the email!