12 Comments
No “no sleeping” sign in sight. Score!
Be sure to order the new mattress heartthrob Ashton Kutcher claims to be comfy (via his generous investments). Does sleeping on the same latex bed product as him mean that you can brag to friends you’ve slept with Ashton? (Fortune)
Newest publication from a feminist American Canadian author Barnard women are sure to rave about! (New York Times)
Is your mattress topper not giving you the good enough illusion that you’re sleeping on something comfortable? Learn how maybe you made the wrong choice in August during that stressful Bed Bath & Beyond trip with mom. (The Telegraph)
CU’s mattress mayhem got some coverage over the weekend. (NY Mag)
Mattress Firm via Shutterstock
Loading …
12 Comments
@Smells like fish Funny how Emma Sulkowicz’s group had the first number in the lottery… What are the odds of that?
@Anonymous Seriously?
No.
@Oh I forgot HOW DARE ANYONE EVER QUESTION THE QUEEN’s MOTIVES!
@Anonymous Wut.
I’m just really confused as to how you think that she managed to rig the housing lottery, and for what possible purpose. The housing lottery has nothing to do with anything.
@Anonymous Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to ‘Oh I forgot’
@Anonamoose Literally the same as the odds of you drawing number 1.
@unbelievable Margaret Atwood is very much Canadian
@:-( microaggressions Can we stop talking about Barnard women as if they’re all pretty Humanities majors with edgy interests? There are feminist CC girls who love Margaret Atwood, just as there are hardcore Barnard science geniuses; the girls aren’t that different on both sides of Broadway. Stop reducing us to stereotypes, and maybe there’ll be less resentment between the two groups.
@Anonymous In 2013, Barnard had 35% “fluffy” (languages, visual arts, and group studies) majors and 1% physical sciences/engineering majors graduating. Columbia had 18% “fluffy” and 20% physical science/engineering.
@ok and i’m a Creative Writing major who’s concentrating in CompSci. what’s your point? am i dumb and useless when I’m in a class for my major, and smart and valuable to society when I’m in a class for my minor?
at some point hopefully you’ll learn to create your own kind of meaning in your life instead of just borrowing from and being defined by convenient labels
@Anonymous There is no point, I just stated a fact in order to refute the false claim “the girls aren’t that different on both sides of Broadway”.
At an individual level, major is obviously not predictive of intelligence, value to society, etc. But on a larger scale, I would suggest that different subjects of undergraduate study tend to have different types of students.
@Female Comp Sci alum Actually, your point says nothing to negate the point “the girls aren’t that different on both sides of Broadway” since you’re citing data about a coed school as a whole. Your so-called “fluffy” majors happen to by the subjects girls are groomed to study, while the engineering/hard sciences are stereotypically male subjects. Most of my comp sci classes were 10-15% women [yeah, I counted]. Also it’s funny how your ratios change when you exclude then *school of engineering*.