Tausig’s crossword is a so-called Schrödinger puzzle, named for the physicist’s hypothetical cat that is at once both alive and dead. In a Schrödinger puzzle, select squares have more than one correct letter answer: They exist in two states at once. “Black Halloween animal,” for example, could be both BAT or CAT, yielding two different but perfectly correct puzzles. Only 10 such puzzles have now been published in Times history.
It’s the theme of Tausig’s puzzle, though, that makes it special. Four entries in Thursday’s crossword can include either an “F” or an “M.” Both are correct; neither is wrong. For example, “Part of a house” can be either ROOF or ROOM. The long “revealer” answer, tying those select entries together and spanning 11 squares smack-dab in the middle of the puzzle, is GENDER FLUID.
This puzzle, with “M”s and “F”s that aren’t fixed, is a masterful blend of subject and structure. “It potentially really evokes what gender fluidity is, which is not moving back and forth between two poles, but actually not being committed to either pole, and potentially existing in many states at different times,” Tausig said.
This is … really cool.
i never really thought of crossword puzzles as an art form, but like… this is art.
I was told by my professors that Kitty Genovese was a 28-year-old unmarried woman who was attacked, raped, and brutally murdered on her way home from her shift as manager of a bar. I was told that numerous people witnessed the attack and her cries for help but didn’t do anything because they “assumed someone else would”. Nobody intervened until it was too late.
Now… is it likely that people overheard Kitty’s cries for help and ignored them because they thought someone else would deal with it? Or, perhaps, did they ignore her because they knew she was a lesbian and just didn’t care?
Maybe that’s not the case. Maybe it was just a random attack. Maybe her neighbours didn’t know she was gay, or didn’t care.
But it’s a huge chunk of information to leave out about her in a supposedly scientific study of events, since her sexuality made her much more vulnerable to violent crimes than the average person. And it’s a dishonour to her memory.
RIP Kitty Genovese. Society may only remember you for how you died, but I will remember you for who who were.
this was one of the first lessons I had in psych too and we were never told about this either nor was it in any of the reading materials
I never knew this.
I also never knew this about Kitty Genovese, but I do know that, in fact, many of the dozen (not thirty-eight) people who witnessed some part of the attack (which took place after 3AM, on a chilly night in March when most people’s windows were closed) tried to help in some way.
One shouted out his window for the attacker to leave her alone, which did successfully scare the man off temporarily.
Another called the police but, seeing her still on her feet, said only that there had been a fight but the woman seemed to be okay.
And when Kitty Genovese was finally attacked in a vestibule where she couldn’t be seen from outside, Karl Ross, a neighbor, saw what was happening but was too frightened himself to go to her rescue–so he started calling other neighbors to ask what he should do. Eventually one of them told him to call the police, which he did, and the woman he called, Sophie Farrar, rushed out to help Kitty even though she didn’t know whether the attacker was gone.
Kitty Genovese died in the arms of a neighbor who tired to help and comfort her while they waited for the police and ambulance to arrive. Kitty was in fact still alive, although mortally wounded, when the ambulance reached the scene.
The man who saw the final stabbing? Who panicked and called other neighbors first instead of the police? The man who said, infamously, that he “didn’t want to get involved” because he was reluctant to turn to the police for help? He was thought to be gay himself. He was a friend of Kitty and Mary Ann’s. After being interviewed by the police he took a bottle of vodka to Mary Ann and sat with her, trying to comfort her.
So, no. I don’t think the evidence indicates that Kitty Genovese’s neighbors let her die because she was a lesbian, because Kitty Genovese’s neighbors tried to help.
(Also, going by the content of the murderer’s confession, it was indeed a random attack.)
how on EARTH was this “scientifically” studied but the details gotten so wrong and the wrong as hell conclusion published and taught in schools?!?!?! where were those scientists observation skills?! on vacation?!
How to take facts and turn them into an urban legend that gets taught in schools: Make a bad made-for-t.v.-movie about it, watch it, believe everything the movie says, annnnnnnd go! That’s how it gets taught as this supposed “scientific study.” Someone got fucking lazy.
I don’t want to live any longer in this world of “the customer is always right.” This is a world that shows the aggressive, the bull-headed, the cruel that they have full license to behave like beasts to get what they want. Half the time, they’re even rewarded for it; “here, ma’am, so sorry for the trouble, please accept this gift card–no charge.”
I want to live in a world that punishes these childish adults as you punish a toddler throwing a tantrum. No candy for you, Jimmy; you’re going home to bed if you can’t mind yourself in public.
Throw a hissy fit because your cashier isn’t moving as fast as you’d like? Find yourself gently escorted from the store until you can show some basic compassion and patience.
Hurl a pen across the table at your signing agent? You’ve just forfeited your right to refinance your mortgage this week. Try again when your temper is managed.
Scream obscenities at the Taco Bell rep because you know it’ll earn you a free soft shell? Here’s your money back; please feel free to play again when you’ve realized fast food is not worth more than the price of human dignity.
I am so sick of accepting–and, in truth, rewarding–these callous behavior patterns in customer service industries. The fact is, the customer is not always right. The customer is often just testing to see what he can get away with. Stop pandering to spoiled children, and show your employees they have more value than their red polo, or how much abuse they can withstand in a 40-hour week.
We are here to provide a service and to make a living.
We are not your punching bags.
seems like the right time of year to bring this back around
The experiences of conventionally attractive people and conventionally unattractive people can be so jarringly different and it really deserves some conversation. But I hate how the only mention of this comes from incels or anti-feminists or other right aligned losers with not an ounce of nuance in their bones lmaooo
Like, your physical attractiveness can shape not just your interpersonal experiences but also real tangible things such as but no limited to whether or not you get a job or being believed as a victim or what kind of roles you can get as an actor or perhaps the length of a sentence or how much help is offered to you in a time of need etc. etc.
Emma's Blog 