I would love it if the world were truly merit-based. Or even if the world were genuinely merit-based, but with random shit that happens in an equal distribution to everyone. Or the random shit could even possibly happen to the people at the bottom of the merit-based world, because the people at the bottom have chosen to be there. I wouldn't prefer that those at the bottom get more shit, but if it had to be that way, I'd accept it.
Unfortunately, the world is not merit-based. The people on top, with the money, the power, the privilege, are not there because they deserve to be there. The people on bottom, with the poverty, the violence, the disenfranchisement, are not there because they deserve to be, either. Our society and world does not start from an equal playing field. All people do not have the same opportunities nor the same starting resources.
In US society, we like to pretend otherwise. We like to pretend that it is possible to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. We point to the statistical minority who overcame the odds and take them as anecdotal evidence that upward social mobility is as easy as working hard and being determined. Therefore, everyone at the bottom who stays at the bottom is just lazy. Is defective. Deserves their miserable lives. We even like to castigate the poor for asking for help. We like to tell them to go help themselves. We prattle on about "a hand-up, not a hand-out," as if we know what they really need. You're hungry? Well, here's a job that you can't go to because you have no childcare and cannot afford to pay someone to do it, look how lazy you are, it's your own fault you're hungry, and you're a bad parent for failing your kids. In fact, you're a failure of a human being because you had kids you can't afford. Oh, you couldn't afford/didn't have access to contraception information? Well then you shouldn't have had sex. You're a slut, too.
In addition to loving to blame those on the bottom for their troubles, we also like to defend those at the top. How dare you feel threatened by an unknown male of obvious physical prowess walking behind you, a lone woman walking at night? That's discriminatory against men! Nevermind that there is a significant history of sexual violence in our culture, much of it perpetrated by men against women, within a culture that actively excuses rape. What? You, a woman, have been sexually assaulted? You must have been asking for it. It must be your fault for not being aware enough of your surroundings, or for wearing provocative clothing, or for drinking alcohol/doing drugs at a party. You should have protected yourself better. Surely it isn't your attacker's fault that they attacked you. I know you got hurt and traumatized, but I doubt it was even an attack. It was probably just consensually rough.
And then there are those who feel threatened by discourse and programs designed to point out/correct differences in power and privilege. What? There's an affirmative action quota that says so many people of color have to be hired, even if they have worse qualifications/test scores that me, a white person? That's racist! Our society isn't racist against people of color anymore, we have a black president! We live in a post-racial world! Quit discriminating against white people! What, you say that the systemic institutional discrimination against people of color for the last several hundred years has left their communities ghettoized and impoverished with inadequate schools and little to no inherited resources, so that correcting for it through affirmative action programs constitutes a small and inadequate measure of justice, but it is something? Well, that's bullshit because we live in a merit-based society. They're poor and undereducated because they are lazy sluts who just want to live off hand-outs, paid for by my hard earned tax money!
Countering all of these arguments is exhausting. The premise, the merit-based society, is a myth, but it is a strongly held one. It shores up all kinds of fallacious arguments that keep injustice from being seen and justice from being done. The defensiveness of the privileged gets old. The pugnaciousness of willing ignorance and blindness is infuriating. And there are times when I just refuse to engage.
Showing posts with label RANT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RANT. Show all posts
Friday, August 6, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Preying on the American Dream
(side note, this is my 100th Blog Post. YAY!)
I have a friend who was very unhappy in her job. She felt discriminated against due to her age, race, and gender, felt like she was always at odds with her bosses, and had multiple run-ins with management. She applied for promotions and did not get them. She made improvements to her work system and instead of being appreciated as useful innovations, they were slapped down.
Then she learned about a miraculous new company that could make her dreams come true. It was based on a co-operative marketing model, so that there was no one to hold her back. No bosses, no management, no need to apply for promotions. With their system and their fail-proof product, the sky was the limit. She could be getting $10,000 checks every week. Her race, her gender, her age would no longer work against her because she would only be working for herself. If she just has the right attitude and drive, she can attain everything she has dreamed of but been unable to manifest until now.
She jumped in with both feet. She was giddy with excitement. She told us all about this marvelous can't-fail product, how it sells itself. She gave us samples, practiced sales pitches, tried to get us to come to meetings. After a few weeks, she realized that the real money was not in selling the product, it was in selling the opportunity to sell the product. She started trying to recruit us as sellers. Slowly, after a month or two, after she had quit her job in a flurry of assertiveness, her enthusiasm began to wane. It was not the dream she had thought it would be. The promises turned out to be rather empty.
I could hate them for their sales. Co-operative marketing is really a modified and repackaged pyramid scheme, and they have a bad reputation for a reason. They sell a dream, the American dream. The dream that says most of the world is unfair, but if you come to us and join our system, you will suddenly make as much as you are truly worth and have all the wealth you have dreamed of but never had the opportunity to earn. The dream that says these inequities of discrimination can be bypassed and you can have your economic justice just this easy. The dream that says everyone else is hurting, but there is a way for you to prosper, and then you can bring in your friends and family and they can prosper, too.
They always seem to hold up a local leader, someone much farther up the pyramid but presented with a fisheye lens so they seem to be much closer. This person makes an awesome amount of money, tens of thousands of dollars each week. They are now your hero. They are now your role model--you, too, can be like them, live in a house like theirs, have success like they have success.
What gets left out is the unlikelihood of being like them. You are too late, you are already too far down the ladder. And you are probably not going to be all that successful at selling your mother, your brother, and your two next door neighbors this dream. This kind of marketing is a great way to lose friends. This kind of marketing sacrifices your relationships for your chance at the brass ring, even as the company touts it as a relationship enhancer because you are going to help everyone get rich.
It makes me angry because it preys on people's dreams. It takes advantage of the anger, the frustration, and the longing for economic success that many of us feel in the workplace. And I am sad when someone else in my extended circle of contacts approaches me about another can't-miss-this opportunity. They always have fabulous personal reasons for why it is such a great endeavor, and my heart breaks. I wish them the best of luck, but I will not be joining.
I have a friend who was very unhappy in her job. She felt discriminated against due to her age, race, and gender, felt like she was always at odds with her bosses, and had multiple run-ins with management. She applied for promotions and did not get them. She made improvements to her work system and instead of being appreciated as useful innovations, they were slapped down.
Then she learned about a miraculous new company that could make her dreams come true. It was based on a co-operative marketing model, so that there was no one to hold her back. No bosses, no management, no need to apply for promotions. With their system and their fail-proof product, the sky was the limit. She could be getting $10,000 checks every week. Her race, her gender, her age would no longer work against her because she would only be working for herself. If she just has the right attitude and drive, she can attain everything she has dreamed of but been unable to manifest until now.
She jumped in with both feet. She was giddy with excitement. She told us all about this marvelous can't-fail product, how it sells itself. She gave us samples, practiced sales pitches, tried to get us to come to meetings. After a few weeks, she realized that the real money was not in selling the product, it was in selling the opportunity to sell the product. She started trying to recruit us as sellers. Slowly, after a month or two, after she had quit her job in a flurry of assertiveness, her enthusiasm began to wane. It was not the dream she had thought it would be. The promises turned out to be rather empty.
I could hate them for their sales. Co-operative marketing is really a modified and repackaged pyramid scheme, and they have a bad reputation for a reason. They sell a dream, the American dream. The dream that says most of the world is unfair, but if you come to us and join our system, you will suddenly make as much as you are truly worth and have all the wealth you have dreamed of but never had the opportunity to earn. The dream that says these inequities of discrimination can be bypassed and you can have your economic justice just this easy. The dream that says everyone else is hurting, but there is a way for you to prosper, and then you can bring in your friends and family and they can prosper, too.
They always seem to hold up a local leader, someone much farther up the pyramid but presented with a fisheye lens so they seem to be much closer. This person makes an awesome amount of money, tens of thousands of dollars each week. They are now your hero. They are now your role model--you, too, can be like them, live in a house like theirs, have success like they have success.
What gets left out is the unlikelihood of being like them. You are too late, you are already too far down the ladder. And you are probably not going to be all that successful at selling your mother, your brother, and your two next door neighbors this dream. This kind of marketing is a great way to lose friends. This kind of marketing sacrifices your relationships for your chance at the brass ring, even as the company touts it as a relationship enhancer because you are going to help everyone get rich.
It makes me angry because it preys on people's dreams. It takes advantage of the anger, the frustration, and the longing for economic success that many of us feel in the workplace. And I am sad when someone else in my extended circle of contacts approaches me about another can't-miss-this opportunity. They always have fabulous personal reasons for why it is such a great endeavor, and my heart breaks. I wish them the best of luck, but I will not be joining.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Calling On the Compassionate Pagans
There is drama in the community. Well, that's not news, there is always drama. Get any kind of independent minded folk together and there will be conflicts. As a friend of mine said, ask any two of us a questions and you'll get five answers.
That said, there is a particular drama that makes me sad. A woman in the community got in over her head. Waaaay in over her head, with too many dependents, too many crises, not enough help. And it has led to some horrific consequences and accusations. It has become clear exactly how sensational the local press is, just by reading the articles they wrote and comparing them to the incomplete "rest of the story" as told to me by a friend. It is a hard and terrible situation. Bad choices were made, and crisis seems to have led to additional bad choices.
Thing is, she is a part of our community. There are people who know her, who are friends with her, who ask for her nurturing help. I admit I have never met her, she is a friend of an acquaintance and an acquaintance of a friend, but I did have a friend who knows her call me to process and tell me the story. (Some would call it gossip, but really, I believe it is important to keep communication open in order to keep community strong.) Apparently there are those whom she called friend who have judged her, written her nasty messages, and turned against her in her time of desperate need.
She dropped her basket. She did not ask for the help she needed, she got in over her head, she made bad choices. That said, why has the community reacted with judgment instead of compassion? And why did her friends ask her to help them if she was so obviously crossing the line into bad choices? What kind of friends and community members do we have that no one pulled her aside and firmly told her to ask for help, or offered help, or made sure that someone who could did help?
What kind of community do we have when we turn against each other in our most desperate hours instead of standing strong in love and compassion?
That said, there is a particular drama that makes me sad. A woman in the community got in over her head. Waaaay in over her head, with too many dependents, too many crises, not enough help. And it has led to some horrific consequences and accusations. It has become clear exactly how sensational the local press is, just by reading the articles they wrote and comparing them to the incomplete "rest of the story" as told to me by a friend. It is a hard and terrible situation. Bad choices were made, and crisis seems to have led to additional bad choices.
Thing is, she is a part of our community. There are people who know her, who are friends with her, who ask for her nurturing help. I admit I have never met her, she is a friend of an acquaintance and an acquaintance of a friend, but I did have a friend who knows her call me to process and tell me the story. (Some would call it gossip, but really, I believe it is important to keep communication open in order to keep community strong.) Apparently there are those whom she called friend who have judged her, written her nasty messages, and turned against her in her time of desperate need.
She dropped her basket. She did not ask for the help she needed, she got in over her head, she made bad choices. That said, why has the community reacted with judgment instead of compassion? And why did her friends ask her to help them if she was so obviously crossing the line into bad choices? What kind of friends and community members do we have that no one pulled her aside and firmly told her to ask for help, or offered help, or made sure that someone who could did help?
What kind of community do we have when we turn against each other in our most desperate hours instead of standing strong in love and compassion?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Music Radio is Political?
There is a billboard campaign in town for Jack FM that says, "Two reasons we don't take requests: Kenny G." This ad bugs the crap out of me. For several reasons. To begin with, Jack FM has a centralized play format, meaning that it is not local nor customized. They go with a rebel slogan (Playing What We Want) and make themselves out to be a maverick radio station when really they are the McDonalds of radio. So I already object to them due to their format and marketing.
But this particular ad especially gets my goat. It uses a superiority complex to justify the station's lack of personality. Basically, they are saying they know better than their listeners, or at least some of their listeners, and are capitalizing on their target audience wanting to join them in feeling superior and elite to other listeners (who prefer or enjoy Kenny G).
Basically, they are taking their standardized format that does not allow for djs or locally generated playlists because it all comes from some centralized and non-Nashville-specific source, and then using their ads to justify not catering to their listeners because some of the listeners might have taste they object to. They are spinning it into a "people are dumb and we know better than you do," and using that as a selling point.
There is a reason I never listen to that radio station. I have been told by friends that it has about one good song in three (which isn't enough for me), but I also prefer something more local, community-oriented, and (gasp!) locally owned. Which is why I mostly listen to Lightening 100 (Nashville's Independent Radio) with some 102.9 The Buzz (Everything that Rocks) thrown in for my hard rock fix.
This is yet another one of those things, I guess, where the simple choices of my day are political. I choose not to assault my sensibilities with input from sources that are not up to my standards both for entertainment (I want 80-90% songs I like on my radio stations, thank you), and for localism and community politics. I sincerely hope all these little things ad up in the end. That's all I'm saying.
But this particular ad especially gets my goat. It uses a superiority complex to justify the station's lack of personality. Basically, they are saying they know better than their listeners, or at least some of their listeners, and are capitalizing on their target audience wanting to join them in feeling superior and elite to other listeners (who prefer or enjoy Kenny G).
Basically, they are taking their standardized format that does not allow for djs or locally generated playlists because it all comes from some centralized and non-Nashville-specific source, and then using their ads to justify not catering to their listeners because some of the listeners might have taste they object to. They are spinning it into a "people are dumb and we know better than you do," and using that as a selling point.
There is a reason I never listen to that radio station. I have been told by friends that it has about one good song in three (which isn't enough for me), but I also prefer something more local, community-oriented, and (gasp!) locally owned. Which is why I mostly listen to Lightening 100 (Nashville's Independent Radio) with some 102.9 The Buzz (Everything that Rocks) thrown in for my hard rock fix.
This is yet another one of those things, I guess, where the simple choices of my day are political. I choose not to assault my sensibilities with input from sources that are not up to my standards both for entertainment (I want 80-90% songs I like on my radio stations, thank you), and for localism and community politics. I sincerely hope all these little things ad up in the end. That's all I'm saying.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Offensive Stereotypes in Toy Story 3
I already spoke a bit about what I liked and what I found to be a masterful guilt-trip in Toy Story 3. Here are some of the other things I find problematic:
The toys are basically slaves that glorify slavery. They can run away (at their great peril) or continue to serve at the whim of their owner (child) without the ability to ever express their needs, wants, or feelings. And yet, they are "Good Slaves" in that they are devoted to serving and all they really want is the chance to be loved as they are and played with. Their first loyalty is always to their owner, and though they notice most everything going on around them, they can comment only among themselves (except under rare and dangerous circumstances). Some owners are bad to them and dismember them, torture them, play with them inappropriately due to immaturity, and though the toys feel terror (and possibly pain), they are powerless to express themselves or change the situation.
The "Spanish Mode" Buzz Lightyear is a horrifically over-the-top stereotype. He becomes an ardent and devoted lover, dances the tango, speaks in a lower, more gravelly (sexy) voice, swivels his hips, and is so much his own cliche that a single rose appears from nowhere in order to be held in the teeth of his lady of choice.
Barbie and Ken: Though soppily emotional, Barbie is given some brains, which is nice. Her guile seems to come naturally, but her straight intelligence is seen only in a single moment when it comes across as comic. Barbie outwits Ken, which would be an encouraging turn of events if Ken weren't coded as so feminine (and possibly gay) that it upholds the social hierarchy whereby a feminine woman trumps a feminine man. At one point Ken is called a "pink-noser," he is very into clothes, and writes in a "girly" manner that is temporarily mistaken as Barbie's writing. I would have no problem with his alternative gender-presentation if it weren't also being held up to a certain amount of ridicule.
As for the rest of the gender dynamics, the co-alphas (or alpha and sub-alpha?) of the toys are both gendered masculine (Woody and Buzz), and the rest of the characters are either gendered masculine or neuter other than the sidekick cowgirl (I forget her name), and Mrs. Potato Head. Barbie is outside their group, but still responds to orders given by the alphas. Also, the alphas are the most strongly cis-gendered, while the rest of the toys are given more quirky/gender-transgressive (and enjoyable to me) personality traits, like the (masculine) T-Rex that is always afraid and worried.
And finally, I take issue with the fact that the big bad guy, the teddy bear, spoke in a southern accent, activating the set of southern stereotypes. Apparently if someone speaks with a southern accent, they are more friendly seeming to your face, more likely to betray you behind your back, more likely to say nasty things in a friendly tone of voice, and more likely to be power-mad or to have rigged the system with boss politics. I think they only left out ignorant, but they did include wrong-minded.
I know that stories work off a certain amount of stock material, but still. I have problems with the use of these stereotypes and find them offensive.
The toys are basically slaves that glorify slavery. They can run away (at their great peril) or continue to serve at the whim of their owner (child) without the ability to ever express their needs, wants, or feelings. And yet, they are "Good Slaves" in that they are devoted to serving and all they really want is the chance to be loved as they are and played with. Their first loyalty is always to their owner, and though they notice most everything going on around them, they can comment only among themselves (except under rare and dangerous circumstances). Some owners are bad to them and dismember them, torture them, play with them inappropriately due to immaturity, and though the toys feel terror (and possibly pain), they are powerless to express themselves or change the situation.
The "Spanish Mode" Buzz Lightyear is a horrifically over-the-top stereotype. He becomes an ardent and devoted lover, dances the tango, speaks in a lower, more gravelly (sexy) voice, swivels his hips, and is so much his own cliche that a single rose appears from nowhere in order to be held in the teeth of his lady of choice.
Barbie and Ken: Though soppily emotional, Barbie is given some brains, which is nice. Her guile seems to come naturally, but her straight intelligence is seen only in a single moment when it comes across as comic. Barbie outwits Ken, which would be an encouraging turn of events if Ken weren't coded as so feminine (and possibly gay) that it upholds the social hierarchy whereby a feminine woman trumps a feminine man. At one point Ken is called a "pink-noser," he is very into clothes, and writes in a "girly" manner that is temporarily mistaken as Barbie's writing. I would have no problem with his alternative gender-presentation if it weren't also being held up to a certain amount of ridicule.
As for the rest of the gender dynamics, the co-alphas (or alpha and sub-alpha?) of the toys are both gendered masculine (Woody and Buzz), and the rest of the characters are either gendered masculine or neuter other than the sidekick cowgirl (I forget her name), and Mrs. Potato Head. Barbie is outside their group, but still responds to orders given by the alphas. Also, the alphas are the most strongly cis-gendered, while the rest of the toys are given more quirky/gender-transgressive (and enjoyable to me) personality traits, like the (masculine) T-Rex that is always afraid and worried.
And finally, I take issue with the fact that the big bad guy, the teddy bear, spoke in a southern accent, activating the set of southern stereotypes. Apparently if someone speaks with a southern accent, they are more friendly seeming to your face, more likely to betray you behind your back, more likely to say nasty things in a friendly tone of voice, and more likely to be power-mad or to have rigged the system with boss politics. I think they only left out ignorant, but they did include wrong-minded.
I know that stories work off a certain amount of stock material, but still. I have problems with the use of these stereotypes and find them offensive.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Your Stuff is Alive, So Feel Guilty: Toy Story 3
I went to see Toy Story 3 this week. Everyone had told me to go. It got something like a 99% approval rating on some site my partner checks to see if movies are worth seeing. And it was definitely cute. There were places I cheered, times I repeated lines in my partner's ear, and times when I felt close to inching forward on my seat. I am not someone who spends much effort trying to predict plotlines, but I found this one to be remarkably fresh in many ways, as were the previous two incarnations, truth be told.
That said, I take issue with some of the underlying Toy Mythos: toys are alive, they have vivid feelings including fear and insecurity, and it is up to their child to satisfy all their needs for love and affection by playing with them often and in an appropriate manner. However, toys are unable to express any of their needs and feelings to the child responsible for meeting them, and must sneak about in order to pursue any of their own ends.
I find this a formula guaranteed to engender worry and guilt in anyone who cares about their toys (like kids). Are your toys okay? Do they feel neglected? Are you ever allowed to get rid of old stuff without feeling like you are betraying your (possibly real) toys?
Toys are things. I have read that modern toys that come with their pre-determined story line are actually detrimental to kids and the development of their imagination and creativity. Toys are tools for learning, for thinking, and for imagining, all the things that are going on while a child is playing. As the child develops, new toys become the tools of the hour and it is appropriate to let go of the sorting by color and move on to the number and word puzzles when the time is right.
I think what I object to most is the popular acceptance of the idea that inanimate objects could be people, when as a society we are having a hard time recognizing the humanity in Muslims and Hispanic immigrants, among others. We treat them as the less-than-human "other", and yet how many of us will now hesitate to throw away broken old toys for fear of the terrible furnace that awaits them at the dump?
And now I am really getting het up, and so will have to do a second post about the racism, and other prejudice in the movie as well....
That said, I take issue with some of the underlying Toy Mythos: toys are alive, they have vivid feelings including fear and insecurity, and it is up to their child to satisfy all their needs for love and affection by playing with them often and in an appropriate manner. However, toys are unable to express any of their needs and feelings to the child responsible for meeting them, and must sneak about in order to pursue any of their own ends.
I find this a formula guaranteed to engender worry and guilt in anyone who cares about their toys (like kids). Are your toys okay? Do they feel neglected? Are you ever allowed to get rid of old stuff without feeling like you are betraying your (possibly real) toys?
Toys are things. I have read that modern toys that come with their pre-determined story line are actually detrimental to kids and the development of their imagination and creativity. Toys are tools for learning, for thinking, and for imagining, all the things that are going on while a child is playing. As the child develops, new toys become the tools of the hour and it is appropriate to let go of the sorting by color and move on to the number and word puzzles when the time is right.
I think what I object to most is the popular acceptance of the idea that inanimate objects could be people, when as a society we are having a hard time recognizing the humanity in Muslims and Hispanic immigrants, among others. We treat them as the less-than-human "other", and yet how many of us will now hesitate to throw away broken old toys for fear of the terrible furnace that awaits them at the dump?
And now I am really getting het up, and so will have to do a second post about the racism, and other prejudice in the movie as well....
Friday, May 21, 2010
Permission to Cut on Your Crotch, Please
FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) is a horrible, horrible thing, right? It must be stopped. It is a perpetuation of nasty terrible patriarchy against defenseless little girls that deprives them of sexual pleasure and the proper function of their genitals. It is so awful that those not-white not-Christian people Over There do this to their children. It is a travesty. We need a crusade. We, the enlightened, civilized White People, need to go Over There and stop those Nasty Patriarchs.
Baloney. Sometimes, hypocrisy knows no bounds. So it is okay to cut on the genitals of male babies, but heaven forbid anyone ever cut on the genitals of female babies? Or, let us conveniently forget that in the late 1800s doctors would perform clitorectomies on Western women to cure "hysteria". "Oh, you're having issues? Well let's just cut this part off, shall we? It'll make things better, I promise."
I'm not saying that I would volunteer for any kind of circumcision or genital cutting, myself. I think they are all rather horrible, honestly. I am happy no one ever cut on my or my partner's genitals, and we will not be doing any cutting on our children, either. In fact, should one of our children be intersex, I am willing to let their genitals be as they are until they are old enough to decide what they want or do not want to do about it (barring medical necessity, of course, and then only as much as is strictly necessary).
I just hate the fact that there is this presumption of moral superiority about it all. It is okay to cut on boys but not girls. It is okay when white people do it, or people in the West or the Developed World, but those horrible Africans over there, look what they do! They should be stopped!
Yes, some of the forms of Female Genital Cutting look horrid to me, quite ghastly, really. But then again, have you ever seen a baby boy get circumcised? Oh the blood, and the wailing!
Let's just NOT cut on anyone's genitals unless they are of age and choose to consent to it, how about that? Just change the laws to say that when anyone turns 18, they have the option of getting cut on. That way, society can pressure everyone, but everyone still gets to choose. We could even have a (gasp!) socialized medical program that pays for any cutting anyone wants to get done, including gender assignment for the intersexed and gender reassignment for transfolk. Sounds good to me.
To see a prime example of the hypocrisy that has set me off on this rant, see this Feministing article about FGC becoming a possible procedure for the American Association of Pediatricians. Read the comments, too. Everyone is up in arms, freaking out. And the procedure in question here is a "ritual nick or pricking" of the clitoris, not even a removal of the glans or any of the labia.
Oh, and for those who have not studied your complete female genital anatomy, what we think of as The Clit is really just the head of the glans, which is connected to a shaft, connected to the legs of the clitoris, connected to the bulbs of the clitoris, and in all there are over 30 different parts to the complete clitoris, taking up all kinds of erotic space in the pelvic floor, and women who have had FGM still report having orgasms, especially if they think of their circumcision in positive terms, which a lot of them do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)