a song about pants

I have a lot of work to do tonight, so I should get back to it. But I thought I’d share this little bit of pants that I came across recently in the course of my ongoing pants research: The pants song.

Let there be pants!

many thanks for all the pants

As I have quickly risen to the highest echelons of the pants-writing set, it is my responsibility to divulge breakthroughs in my ongoing pants research whenever possible. So I would be remiss if I did not share with you (with her permission) the following excerpt from an email sent by my lovely friend Elizabeth, without whom I could not have reached these great pants heights. (You see, it is Elizabeth who first introduced me to the inherent funniness of the word pants.)

Oh, and this morning I was innocently washing my hair when I noticed that my shampoo bottle had a trivia question on it: Who do people say they talk to the most? And then it said the answer was on the conditioner bottle. I grabbed the conditioner bottle and the answer was….PANTS. I kid you not. As it turns out, I bought the green shampoo and the purple conditioner and even though they’re the same brand, they’re not the same type, so they have different questions and answers. So I’ve spent most of this morning trying to figure out what the answer to the question is (I would guess spouse/partner, Evan thinks it’s themselves) and what the question could possibly be that’s answered by the word pants. It’s all I can do not to drive to CVS and check out the green conditioner and purple shampoo. I think it’s cruel that hair product manufacturers would do this. I mean, don’t most people take showers in the morning, when they’re not at their sharpest mentally?

Anyway, thought you’d appreciate the random appearance of pants in my life.

–Elizabeth

In the interests of pants research, I aks for your help. Please consider some possible questions which might be answered with “pants”, and share them with the greater pants community.

May the pants be with you.

creepy new airport security technology can look under your pants

I saw a NYT article this morning describing new airport security technology: passenger x-ray machines.

X-ray vision has come to the airport checkpoint here, courtesy of federal aviation security officials who have installed a new device that peeks underneath passengers’ clothing to search for guns, bombs or liquid explosives.

This creepy new technology can let TSA employees do a virtual strip-search. It actually looks very impressive, giving an outline of the passenger’s skin. And I guess I find it fascinating. But, and I repeat. I also find it creepy. And unsettling.

Anyhow, this news story reminds me of a number of things. So here. Have a list:

  1. Superman (eg. 1978). He had x-ray vision. Could look through Lois Lane’s clothes to see her undies.
  2. Total Recall (1990). Shows security screening of the future with people walking along through full-body x-rays. We get to see skeletal structure in this movie, though. Not skin.
  3. The image the article shows looks a little like a 3D ultrasound. (Though the technology is totally different.)
  4. And I’m reminded of the airport security game (Hat-tip to Schneier, who has lots of interesting things to say about the games we play relating to “security.”) This game lets you play an airport security employee, screening passengers and their bags as they try to pass through security. Your task is to keep up with the ever-changing, and frequently random, restrictions on items that passengers may have on their person or in their carry-on bags as they pass through. For example, sometimes passengers are not allowed to wear their shoes as go through the security gate. And sometimes they are not allowed to be wearing pants.

My baby is a cross-dresser

Phoebe has a lot of clothes. Some of them girly. But many of them what I would consider gender-neutral. However, if it’s not girly (pink, purple, princessy and/or with hearts, flowers, butterflies or fairies), it’s apparently considered downright boyish. And we’re not even talking just blue or patterned with footballs or monster trucks. Or even stripes or plaid. We’re talking about animal prints. Teddy bears? Boyish. Doggies? Boyish. (Though kitties seem to be girlish) Hippos? Boyish. Owls? Boyish. (But other birds are girlish.) Frogs, turtles, alligators, lizards? Boyish. Bugs? Boyish. (Except for girly dragonflies, ladybugs and butterflies.) Green, yellow, or orange? Boyish. You’d be amazed at how many people take it as an affront when they discover that Phoebe is a girl when we have her dressed in [gasp] blue or [shudder] hippos.

For example, yesterday, when I took Phoebe to my old Tae Kwon Do school, I saw a bunch of people I hadn’t seen in ages. Some of whom didn’t know about the whole baby business. Phoebe was wearing jeans with a gray hoodie and gray socks, and had her beige jacket with teddy bear motif, and a pair of mary janes. And in two separate incidents, a couple of women asked, more or less, “who’s this guy?” To which I responded, more or less, “she’s Phoebe.” (n.b. They were like “who’s this guy,” and I was like “she’s a girl.”) One woman responded, with a look of shock: “But you have her in blue! I thought she was a boy.” (The bear jacket has blue details. The jeans are blue.) With the other, the jacket was off, so the reaction was “I saw the gray and black.” Each woman was a bit uncomfortable, apparently embarrassed for having made such a gaff. However, I didn’t mind. You see, Phoebe is a baby. And as far as I’m considered, her sexuality is not really an issue at this point.

Another time, when Phoebe was even smaller, there was a similar incident. At the Home Despot (a monstrously large hardware store, for those not in the know). A young woman (or perhaps teenager) who was working there stopped to look at Phoebe, who was wearing a yellowish orange outfit with fishies. And she (the employee, not Phoebe) said something like: “What a cute baby. I can’t tell if it’s a boy or a girl.” To which I replied, “Yeah, we tend to dress her gender-neutrally.” And then the young woman suggested that we could get Phoebe’s ears pierced so people could tell she was a girl. Hello? If I felt so strongly that people absolutely must never ever mistake my baby for a boy, why would I dress her gender neutrally? I would be capable of, for example, finding some article of pink clothing with which to label her, or slap a bow on her head. Without actually resorting to poking holes in her.

Anyhow, while Phoebe does have her share of girly clothes (and she does look terribly cute in them), she often dresses a lot like me. (Except for the animal prints. No teddy bears emblazen my coat, or anything else I wear.) I wear a lot of gray. Black. Dark colors. And actually, I like to wear men’s shirts. And men’s sweaters. And fairly recently, I also discovered men’s pants. You see, I can get great deals on clearance pants because my size is not a common size for men. So for instance, I got a couple of pairs of men’s pants at the Gap for $5.00 each from a clearance rack. Which is handy for my transitional pants needs. (When I tried the women’s clearance rack I was displeased both with the size I would need to get, and the styles available. Plus the women’s pants were way more expensive.) I also wear shoes that would not be described as girly. I like to wear Docs, and ones that could be either men’s or womens. So actually, many days, I wear outfits that are basically entirely men’s outfits. (Aside from the undies. Let’s not go there just now.) So, I guess I’m a bit of a cross-dresser myself.

Cross-dressing has quite a lot of representations in theater, film and TV. We have men dressing as women, and women dressing as men. Sometimes, it’s a case of pretending to be the opposite gender, other times it’s wearing oppositely-gendered clothes as a style choice. Or perhaps lifestyle choice. And sometimes there are other reasons. I’m working on a list, with some attempts to categorize. (And perhaps cross-categorize. Which is appropriate for cross-dressing, I suppose.) But as my list is getting quite long, and as I have work I need to do tonight, I’ll have to save the list for another day. (Those damn lists take a long time…)

A Message from the Ministry of Pants

We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you the following important message: Pants are everywhere. We bring you this pair of pants images:

changed-my-life.jpg

big_win_for_pants.jpg

John and I saw these pants window banners at the mall a couple of weeks ago at Banana Republic. Neither of us had our cameras with us. I’ve been meaning to get back there to take a picture before they pull down their pants. But I haven’t had time. Yesterday, John, love of my life, heart of my heart, stopped by the mall again on his way to a meeting. Just so he could get me these pants.

pants in the media

Here’s something I’ve been meaning to share. In a reflection of pants synergy in the universe, as soon as I’d posted my last pants musings, I came across this excellent pants-related post on a blog I frequent:

Dressing Down the Media’s Attention on Pelosi’s Pants

(synopsis: Media says “Nancy’s pants are fancy pants.” Alice rants.)

the power of pants

Fooled ya! This post isn’t really about pants at all. Well, I guess it’s about “pants,” the tag.

WordPress has this feature by which you can check out other posts from WordPress blogs with the same tag. And for each tag, it will also show you a list of “related tags,” in case you want to follow up with other posts on similar topics. For example, for the tag “politics,” you currently get the following list of tags:
news, blogroll, life, culture, personal, religion, iraq, music, media and books

Recently, I decided to add the tag “pants” to my recent posts on pants. I am pleased to inform you that right now, at least, if you click on the “pants” tag, you get to see the following “related tags:”

  1. words
  2. linguistics
  3. humor

pants_tags.jpg

Those are actually the only related tags WordPress lists right now. (You’d expect to see “trousers” or “slacks”, perhaps “shirts” or even “fashion”…)

What I find even funnier, is that I see that the list of related tags for “linguistics“, which has related tags such as “languages”, “sociolinguistics,” and other terms you might expect, also includes “pants”. My friends, that is the power of pants.

linguistics_tag.jpg

By the way, this suggests to me that perhaps looking at blog tags would not be the most reliable means of investigating, say, semantic networks. (Though it could lead to lots of entertainment.)

return of the promised pants

I’m so embarrassed. I ran off to class on Monday, with my pants only half-way up. I mean, my pants post. I promised you some pants, and then I left you hanging. So, here I am again. Back with the pants.

Before I begin with the in-depth pants analysis, let’s pull our pants back up:

a. Listen to the pants. The file pair_of_pants.wav (and the streamed mp3 version of the same) contains two productions of the word pants, one “normal,” and one “funny.” (Before I tell you which is which, I’ll let you try the pants on yourself for size. I mean, judgements.)

Streamed version of pair_of_pants.mp3:

pair_of_pants.wav soundfile (can be downloaded):

b. pants methods. To recap:

The two productions of pants were spoken by a female native speaker of American English who was wearing pajama pants at the time of the recording. Each of the two versions of pants is of a similar length (roughly .7 seconds from the onset of the [p] burst), and produced in citation form with a similar f0 contour (H* L-L% in ToBI terms).

c. The funny pants. In my head at least, the second pants version is way funnier than the first. Especially when used in a sentence, such as “you’re not wearing pants:”

not_wearing_pants.mp3

d. Look at the pants. Let’s return to our citation form examples.

Figure 1: pair_of_pants.wav with accompanying Praat TextGrid, and some arrows and stuff
Note: The display shows waveform (top panel) and spectrogram with overlayed f0 track in blue (middle panel). The third panel, the TextGrid, shows orthographic transcription.
pair_of_pants_marked.jpg

e. Pants analysis. A couple of acoustic differences between the two versions are quite striking: 1) differences in aspiration and 2) differences in the second formant.

  1. differences in aspiration. Check out the much higher amplitude aspiration noise in the second version (on the right). The arrows marked with “1” point to this in the waveform. Further, you can hear the aspiration ([h]-ness) continuing through the vowel, which is produced with a much breathier voice than the first version.
  2. differences in the second formant. (Note: if you’re not used to reading spectrograms, the first 3 formants show up as more-or-less horizontal dark smudgy lines. The first formant is on the bottom. The second formant, marked with the red arrows marked with “2”, is the middle dark smudgy line.) In the “normal” pants version, the second formant falls rather steeply throughout the vowel (indicating that the vowel is diphthongized). In the “funny” pants version, the second formant stays pretty much horizontal.

f. Pants conclusions. Pants is a funny word. I like to say the word pants.