Observations Along The Road... at Dreamwidth

As it is the start of Pride Month, I feel it is appropriate to post these thoughts that have been going around in my head. This all got started last week when I answered a question on Quora about whether trans rights would be the downfall of America, and the ensuing questions and answers that arose therefrom. It made me realize the level of misinformation that is out there, and the stunning ignorance that results from people not listening and thinking. So I’d like to do my part to clarify things, at least from my understanding as a cismale person.

First, there are three distinct things out there that are seemingly being conflated by those on the “anti-Woke” (henceforth !W) crowd:

• Transgender. This is the condition when the physical body that one has is not congruent with the gender identity in the mind. It is something that is really hard for most of us to think about — after all, we never think about our gender as something different than what our sex organs are. But there are those who have that condition. When they do, they have a range of options, from hiding their identity (bad idea), to expressing their identity in various ways. They can simply dress and adopt the lifestyle of the gender they seem themselves as. They can go on the appropriate hormones. They can avail themselves of various surgical options. All of these things require psychological counseling and multiple years; surgery in particular requires years of living as the other gender before it is even considered. Many trans folks don’t have surgery. It is important to note that individuals under 18 DO NOT have irreversible surgery, unless some significant medical reason requires it. Before age 18, puberty blockers are used to delay puberty (there are rare side effects), and in later adulthood, hormone therapy may be used (the “at birth” gender reasserts itself if those hormones are stopped). In other words: Nothing irreversible is done before age 18. It is also important to note that suicide is very common for people suffering from this dysmorphia, and the impacts of the medicines are much better than suicide. It is also important to note that trans is independent of sexuality and sexual desire. Lastly, note that the percentage of folks that are trans is very very small, when compared to the overall population.
• Drag Queens. Drag is just another form of cosplay, and drag queens are just actors inhabiting a persona. Drag has been around for a long time. In Shakespeare’s time, all “women” actors were played by men. We had folks like Milton Berle in the 1950s and 1960s, there was Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in the 1950s, there were TV kid show hosts; there was Flip Wilson and Bob Hope; and of course, there was Mrs. Doubtfire. This is just acting. It is not recruiting kids, and it is not sexual. KIds just like playing around, putting on costumes, and pretending to be other people and using their imaginations. Nothing about sex at all. They like watching people in costume. The important thing here is that drag is for entertainment.
• Cross-dresser. A term for people who dress in clothing traditionally or stereotypically worn by the other sex, but who generally have no intent to live full-time as the other gender. Some of these folks do get sexual pleasure from doing this, but not all. Again, these folks don’t recruit, but do it for their own pleasure.

Different things. None of them recruiting kids.

It is also useful to understand life is rarely binary, and there aren’t simple dimensions in this area. Sex isn’t XX or XY; genetically there is a wide range between the gender (see this article). Gender is a societal construct that changes over time, and it is also a spectrum from male to female to ambiguous areas in-between. There are also dimensions that are spectrums with respect to romantic attraction and sexual attraction (not always the same). And, of course, there are folks who just want to have no part of any of this, and just to live their own life on their terms. We should not be judging on this. As the Skittles ad says: Enjoy the rainbow.

So, the next question is: Should there be laws limiting this stuff? The answer here is a resounding “No”. Such laws are un-American, where the Constitution explicitly permits freedom of expression. Gender is a form of expression. Simple as that.

You say your religion is against it? Then don’t do it yourself. But don’t use your religion as a cudgel to force other people to agree with your religious views. That is also un-American, where there is freedom of religion.

What about bathrooms you say? A few points here:

• If you were in a ladies room, and saw someone dressed as a guy walk in, you would be upset. Similarly, if you were in a men’s room and saw a woman walk in. So the rule should be simple: Go into the restroom that matches your gender expression.
• The notion of genital inspection to enforce restroom usage is just plain stupid. If the government does it, it goes against the 4th amendment: unreasonable search. If a person does it, it is essentially sexual assault.
• But what about exposed genitals in the restroom. I don’t know where you go, but I don’t see them except at the trough pissers at a baseball game. Go into a private stall, mind your business, do your business, and wash your hands.
• What about shared and open showers? That’s a bit of a harder question, for you want to respect others as well. Usually, you can find a private shower to use. You might need to wait until you get home. Talk to the management. But remember: It is as much a concern for the person being seen as the person doing the seeing.

What about sport teams, you say:

• Personally, I think we should get rid of gendered colligate and professional teams, and go to weight and strength based classes, independent of gender. That’s a fair and equitable solution.
• Otherwise, at the College and Professional Level, there should be a requirement to have been on the appropriate hormone for a significant period (which weakens or strengthens muscle mass), with private changing areas. This does actually tend to be quite rare.
• For kids? We shouldn’t have the gender distinction. Just provide the appropriate changing areas, and let the kids have fun playing together.

It boils down to this: Treat people as you would like to be treated: with respect. Call them what they want to be called. Treat them as the gender they present as. Don’t judge, lest ye be judged.

Oh, and let the drag queen read to your kids. They’ll probably enjoy the story, and maybe will learn a very important lesson from the drag queen: reading is a lot of fun.

What? You were thinking they would learn something else?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as 📰🌈 Fighting the Misinformation by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

I’ve said it many times: some of my best essay prompts come from my Conservative friends on FB. Just this morning, in response to the firing of Matt Lauer, I saw the following in a comment conversation chain:

Poster 1: I actually believe this will work the opposite way: if you so much as look crosseyed at a woman at work – no harassment of any kind by any stretch of the imagination, she’ll claim it anyway and you’re still gone. There was a round of this kind of stuff going on in the late 80s and early 90s. Guys need to be squeaky clean and need to be prepared to lawyer up against false accusations.

Poster 2:  As for women. I am growing to want little to do with any of them outside my wife and family, it’s too risky. Too many false accusations and everything is assault now. Even just having good manners. Women’s libbers are truly setting the female gender back decades. Who is going to want to hire a potential lawsuit knowing it’s now “guilty until proven innocent” in this matter?

Just think about this for a minute, and you’ll see why this is an essay prompt. Follow this down the path, and where do you end up? We must keep the women separate to protect us. They must dress modestly (thank you Angela Lansbury). “It’s not my fault, I just looked at her wrong.”

Guys (I was going to say “Folks”, but perhaps “Guys” is better): You need to listen to those Sexual Harrassment training courses. The issue isn’t looking at them crosseyed (although pervasive stares could be a problem). The issue isn’t opening the door for someone or being polite. The issue isn’t women in the workplace.

Here’s what the key issues are: (1) Harassment. (2) Power. (3) Respect. In many ways, it boils down to the Golden Rule. Not Trump’s Golden Rule, which is “He who has the gold makes the rules.”, but the biblical one, which for those unaware goes back to the Talmud:

Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.”  – Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a

How do these points relate?

1. Harassment. Don’t harass anyone, in any way. That’s being a bully. That can range from offensive looks, artwork you know will incite, statements you know will incite. Don’t push people’s buttons. Wikipedia notes that harassment  is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is behavior that appears to be disturbing or threatening. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantageous to the victim. Key aspects there: Persistent and unwanted. In other words: the first time you do it, it is a mistake. Do it again, your ass is grass. I said so in an earlier post. Whether sexual or just bullying. This isn’t a “female” thing. If you wouldn’t behave that way to someone you like and respect, don’t do it.
2. Power. Often these relationships are an abuse of power. They are attempts to show that you have the power, or you are taking advantage of that power to get something of benefit. Be it money, sex, or some other favor. Don’t do it. Again: Using your power against someone is just being a bully.
3. Respect. Hillel said it best: “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow.” Perhaps you know this as the line from Matthew: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Same thing. Treat people with respect, they way you would want them to treat you. This goes to word, deed, and what you do in your workplace at home. It is an attitude to teach your children.

The problem is not women in the workplace. The problem is not looking at them crosseyed. The problem is not avoiding all women. [And, to be fair, not that this isn’t just a man to woman problem — ask Kevin Spacey]. The problem is treating people as sexual objects, not people. The problem, even broader, is treating people as objects, not people. Treat people with respect, as you would want to be treated, and you’ll be just fine.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Essay Prompt: Sexual Harrassment and Women in the Workplace by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

Some thoughts on all the sexual harassment / abuse / shenanigans that have been in the news of late:

• This is not a partisan issue. What all of those accused have in common is that they are men, typically of a certain era.
• There are levels of abuse being lumped together, from the off-color jokes or outside the clothes gestures on the least end to true sexual harassment and abuse (i.e., abuse of power relationship), improprieties with those underage, predatory activities, and activities after consent was not given. There are also ranges from one-time incidents where the behavior was an anomaly, to repeated patterns of behavior with multiple accusers.
• The concern should be less with the one-time minor cases and more with repeated patterns of abuse that have continued over multiple years.
• The response to the accusations is also significant: there is a different between recognizing wrong behavior and apologizing for it, between admitting the behavior and indicating you viewed it as acceptable, and denying the behavior. On the correct end of the spectrum is recognition, apology, and acceptance of the apology, without a continuing pattern. On the wrong end of the spectrum is denial in the face of multiple accusations with evidence of continued behavior.
• All cases are worthy of investigation and appropriate action. Just as it is proper for the Senate to investigate Sen. Franken’s behavior from before he was elected Senator, they should equally investigate the claims regarding the President’s behavior before he was elected, and similar claims against other sitting officials and those nominated or running for office. Yes, I’m looking at you, Roy Moore. Remember: What these folks have in common is that they are men — this is not a partisan issue where this behavior is acceptable when it is done by your party, but not when done by their party.
• There is a tension, as I have noted before, between our notions of justice and presumed innocence, and wanting to believe those who have come forward with the claims because they deserve to be heard. Complicating this is the fact that many of these incidents are ages old, with little to no evidence other than he said/she said. We are far too aware of induced memory (such as the McMartin Pre-School case) or people making false claims for various less-than-honorable reasons. This is where looking for a continuing pattern of behavior and claims is important, and consideration of the nature of the behavior. I’m willing to give more benefit-of-the-doubt in the one time, less critical cases, and believe the accuser more when there is a pattern that emerges of more problematic behavior. This is independent of politics.
• For many of these cases, there must be the recognition that much of this problem is “a product of those times”. Men in the 50s, 60s, and above were raised in a less enlightened era. This may explain (but does not excuse) certain comments and jokes and attitudes, although those behaviors must not be occurring today. The past cannot be changed. However, it does not excuse abuse of power relationships, true harassment and abuse, or predatory behaviors. Those were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
• In many cases, this new attitude will expose people who were once respected, and who now are off their pedestal. Bill Cosby is probably the best example of this — it is unclear how one views his humor and records today. Does his behavior make his stories any less funny? There are similar questions for folks like Woody Allen. How does one separate the art from the behavior of the artist? There are similar questions in the area of politics. How does one separate the political results and achievements of a politician (for example, Bill Clinton, George Bush Sr., John Kennedy) from their behavior? The answers will not be easy. As historians note: history is complicated, probably because it comes from humans. The founders of this country were often products of their time and owned slaves. Does that make their results any less admirable? We must recognize these people as men with strengths and weaknesses, not heroes like Superman.

Related: Actually, It’s Franken’s Monster. (The Nib)

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Sexual Shenanigans by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

One of the reasons I’ve really grown to like the new Fox series The Orville is that it does what Star Trek did originally: tell stories that are commentaries on society and its foibles in the context of Science Fiction (which is something that, to my understanding, Star Trek: Discovery is not doing). Last week’s episode was a great example of that: a parallel Earth where laws were replaced by the Court of Public Opinion. If the public thinks you have committed an offense, you are down-voted. Get enough, and you get cleansed, unless you can reverse public opinion. Sound familiar today? But we are a society of laws, and people are not guilty by public opinion alone. We depend on facts.

What brings this to mind are all the sexual harassment claims coming out these days. The ends of the spectrum, of course, are clear. Is there any question regarding the Harvey Weinsteins, the Bill Cosbys, or the Donald Trumps? There are clear patterns occurring over many many years. At the other end are the clear good guys, who have always shown respect and listened to “no”.

But in the middle, where we do draw the line? When do we turn from a fact-based society and the court of law to the court of public opinion. There was an image going around Facebook of Pepe LePew grabbing the cat and the cat resisting, and the caption was: How do you think we taught this behavior? If we go back and look at the media from much of the 20th century, there is much behavior there that wouldn’t be acceptable today. If people were following the mores of the time, how can we judge them by today’s mores?

[I’ll note this is a deep question that goes beyond sexual issues: Do we judge the founders of this country differently because they legally owned slaves? The people of biblical days different because they stoned gays? We can look back and note the behavior would be judged differently today, but that’s hindsight. It’s wrong to us; it wasn’t wrong to them. Times change and values change and we move forward. Think about this: After the Civil War was over and slaves were freed, were the Plantation Owners criminally charged for their antebellum actions? Criminal charges are different than acknowledgement, reparations, and changing behavior from what you did in the past.]

What got me thinking about this was some recent items in the news that were single incidents. Anthony Rapp and Kevin Spacey. Jeremy Piven, Dustin Hoffman. For some of these, the public is reacting and taking action against someone even before charges are investigated, just because of the climate of the times — and even when the charge is denied. There is the assumption that the person making the charge is always truthful — wait, since we’re talking about past instances, is always remembering accurately. Remember, when we’re talking about incidents in the past, “truth” is relative. Memory can be faulty, especially in times of media frenzy.  Look no further than the McMartin Preschool case, where there ended up being no criminal charges. Further, there is often a clear difference between what one means by an action, and how that action is interpreted by another. Just ask anyone who is married :-).

At a computer security talk I once went to, a speaker hypothesized that the best attack against someone was to go to a conference room computer, load child porn onto it, and then delete it, and then make an accusation. After all, the offending pictures were there and deleted — there must be a coverup. When could these sex abuse claims cross that line?

I’m not saying I know the answer. I can’t draw a clear demarcation line, even if I would like to. I can clearly see the edges — the clear patterns of abuse over a long time, the clear patterns of no abuse at all. But for the onsie-twosie cases with no patterns, perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to trot out the Court of Public Opinion, unless their is an admission. Perhaps we should let the case go to the court systems to find out the real evidence, or figure out some way to make things more fact-based, to live up to our constitutional protection that one is innocent until proven guilty by some sufficient standard of evidence.

P.S.: I’m not sure we’re there yet anyway, when I watch TV and CBS is touting the Victoria Secret Fashion Show.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as A Very Fine Line by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

Let’s start the year right: let’s start with a news chum. Further, not just any news chum, but a subject sure to titillate. A chum that touches upon some of the issues of discrimination, diversity, and boundaries that I opine will be large in 2016.

Before I do, however, a word of introduction: I call these posts “news chum”, because I expect (or hope) for them to be like chum in shark-infested waters. Follow the links. Read the articles. Then comment with your opinion. Let’s get some discussion going. Perhaps these three articles will bloody the water some.

In any case, back to boobs:

• The Impact of Boobs. LA Magazine is trying to draw attention to itself by rerunning some classic articles.  One of the most interesting is from 2002: an article from an editor who donned fake boobs to see how society treated her differently. A fascinating read (called “California or Bust”), she had some industry people construct a device that took her from an A cup to a D cup… and then watched for the reactions. They were, of course, predictable. To quote the article: “I’ve spent my whole life pretending breasts don’t matter. Part of me still wants to believe it’s true. I can make all the arguments, which basically come down to this: Women should be valued for their selves, not their shelves. Still, I have to admit, at the moment the breasts I’m toting feel like more than mere flesh. They feel like the source of all power.” Interesting read.
• When is a Boob a Boob? I’ll note up front that the answer is not: “When they are elected to Congress?”. The question is a serious one, raised by a transgender fellow who is in the process of transitioning. He has been taking topless pictures of himself, and asking the question: When is the precise magical moment when the line is crossed and Facebook or Instagram considers the photo obscene? It really is a hard question. I’ve seen some theatre shows of late where men have been on stage topless, but they have had such sufficient quantity of man boob, you weren’t sure what you were seeing (or whether you wanted to see it). But that is publicly acceptable? Yet there will be some point in this fellow’s transition where what was previously acceptable no longer is. To me, it highlights this artificial distinction and prudery (that you, Mr. and Ms. Puritan) that exists in America. Truthfully, there should be no distinction.
• Boobs and Bathrooms. The prudery in society is hitting the equality discussion large. And it is hitting us in the bathroom. Specifically, the bathroom is being used as the argument to shoot down equal rights in various areas. We’ve all seen this in action: We can’t legislate equality for transgenders: we’ll have men putting on dresses to go into the woman’s bathrooms. Yeah, right. As if people wander around the bathrooms naked (dressing rooms are potentially different matters). They forget the answer is simple: single user stalls, and single user dressing spaces.

All of these boil down to the same issue: an unspoken belief that men cannot control themselves. Large breasts serve as a benefit in plastic Hollywood because of the sexism of the male patriarchy in charge. Breasts cannot be visible on Facebook or Instagram because men will find them obscene or they will incite men into sexual acts (I don’t think I’ve women making the argument that seeing the breast of another women will incite sexual desire). We can’t have equality because that will imply mixed sex in bathrooms, and men will use it to spy on nekked women (hmmm, has that happened in the co-ed bathrooms in colleges?).

So, yes, this first news chum post of the year does boil down to its title: Don’t be a boob. Control yourself.

P.S.: Related to this, we have the whole question of Bill Cosby. My opinion on the subject is summarized by an image I saw on Facebook:  “He said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, …” But I’m still conflicted. On the one hand, we have Cosby as a womanizer (that is clear). On the other hand, we have the legacy of humor he provided: from wonderful non-sexist albums such as Wonderfulness to 200 MPH to the messages that came across on the Cosby show. How can we balance the disgust from one against the good of the other? In other areas, we’ve been able to separate the artistic legacy from the sexual misdeeds of the creator (Woody Allen, Michael Jackson) and in others we haven’t (Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle). Will we be able to separate here?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

This has been an even busier week than usual — I’ve barely had time to keep up with my RSS feeds and skim the LA Times. So I’ve only got a few items for you this week:

• Not Tonight, Dear, I have a headache. In a scientific survey destined to end up on “Wait Wait”, scientists have shown that headaches impact a woman’s sexual desire much more than they impact the desire of men. Specifically, new research has shown that for female mice, bodily pain puts a serious damper on sexual desire, but pain-reduction can help restore libido squelched by physical discomfort. However, for men, the desire to have sex wasn’t dampened even if you kick them in the nuts. But is this really news?
• It’s your shul on line 1… Here’s an article that every synagogue (and probably church) board member should read: What if your synagogue called and didn’t ask for money? The answer, not surprisingly, is that people are much more receptive. This goes to what a number of URJ leaders are saying these days: focus on building the relationship, and not getting the donations. When the relationship is strong, the donations will show up. Will temple boards listen, however, and pay this more than lip service?
• Connections. Every week the Jewish Journal highlights a holocaust survivor (and I’ll note that this weekend is Yom Hashoah). This week, it was Frank Schiller. I’m not sure if I ever met Frank, but I did go to both camp and temple with Frank’s children, Gary and Vicky. Haven’t seen them in years, but I’d love to get back in touch.
• La Mirada Season. Lastly, the La Mirada Theatre has announced their 2014-2015 season. It consists of “Good People“, “Late Nite Catechism Las Vegas: Sister Rolls the Dice“, “Billy Elliot” (the musical), a musical version of “Pride and Prejudice“, “Mary Poppins” (the musical), two special events (“Dancing with a Twist” and an Amy Grant concert), and the musical “Carrie“. Of these, “Carrie” is unique enough to get me to travel down to La Mirada. Already blocking it off on my calendar.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

This morning, while reading the Romenesko blog, a fascinating article was cited: it asked the question of why women’s magazines are never placed in the “serious journalism” category. After all, general interest publications do serious journalism. Even GQ and Playboy are considered to do serious journalism.  But what about Vogue or other magazines aimed towards women? Why is there a general assumption they can’t do serious work. Once I read this article, other things on a similar theme just kept popping up.

For example, CNN had an article about the side effect of sexual abuse in the military — it is discouraging women for applying. In the case CNN cited, a mom actively discouraged her daughter from following her into the Army because she had been gang-raped when she was in the service. In other words, not only the officers and service members who are doing this abusing their authority and bringing shame to the military, they are also bullying qualified women — who might be great for the service — from applying. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Bullying is everywhere, when you look for it. US News has an article about the side effect of sibling bullying. It can be a source of lifelong depression and anxiety for the bullied sibling (just look at Tommy Smothers). Seriously, it raises into question whether sibling battles toughen a child…. or create problems later.

Continuing on this thread: Why do we find this acceptable, or at least think the victim deserved it? The Ferrett had an interesting supposition — it is because internally we think other people must be like ourselves. In other words, because we’re good and would never do bullying or physical violence unless provoked, we think others are the same and must have had a reason. Ferrett believes that we need to break that mindset: there are people who bully and are just violent — without provacation — just because that’s who they are. To put it in the context of a recent hit movie, it is because some people are just evil and bad.

Of course, some people are pure good. But even they can’t get a job in today’s world. Just look at the rejection letter Clark Kent received recently from the Daily Planet.

Music: Duets II (Tony Bennett, Josh Groban): “This Is All I Ask”

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know I don’t just like to post links — I like to comment on the news, with preferably a minimum of 3 news items. I was staring at one of the articles I had saved when suddenly a theme came to mind that tied together with two other items in the news. All of these have to do with how women are seen: by men, by women, and by society, and the damaging effects that can have. Do excuse my errors in this; being a man, these are observations from the outside, and I might word things wrong.

• Being a Boob. If you’ve been reading the news at all today, you know that Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy recently due to a high risk of breast cancer. Why was there so much attention? Surely, it wasn’t because all of the editors were concerned about women’s health (although that’s what they’ll claim). No, it is because articles about women’s breasts — especially a sexy celebrity — will attract the eyeballs of male readers. I, of course, read the comments and there is the usual number of trolls out there bemoaning Brad’s loss. I refer everyone to an excellent piece by The Ferrett on this, where he notes that the attitude of “Poor Brad” has the implicit statement that women are good for only one thing in a relationship: sex. Once that is gone, why have the relationship. For anyone really in a relationship, we know this isn’t true: we are with our partners for much more than sex: we love the person and the brain and the attitudes and the fun — and for that, we want the physical package to be healthy. True relationships don’t depend on breasts.
• Getting the Look. Of course, one part of selling the “sex” (and perhaps the submissiveness) of women is marketing, and how characters are marketed to little girls. We’ve already seen Belle lose any nerdiness she had, and Disney was attempting it again with Merida from Brave. They were attempting to turn Merida into the typical princess, not the tomboy she was, and this got people upset. Of course, the good news (for now) is that it looks like the battle has been won.
• Indoctrinating Them Early. Lastly (and the article that actually inspired this post), we have an article from CNN on the damaging effects of proms. The article details a number of items — cost being only one aspect … with most of them having to do with the message a prom sends. What are these messages? Conventional beauty is valued most. Straight is better. Valued girls are submissive, not assertive. Share everything.  These messages may not come through at all schools, but I’m sure for many they do (especially in more traditional areas).

It seems sometimes that the battle is hard, with the media sending the message that there is only one shape desired, and women are good for only one thing. Luckily, there are some men out there who haven’t swallowed that line: who love their partners because of who they are, not just what they look like or how they are in bed, and who realize that a relationship is more than just sex… it is finding someone who you truly connect with and will be there for… no matter what.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

It’s Saturday. Time to clear out the bookmarks from the week that didn’t form into otherwise coherent themes. As always, these are news articles or other items that came across my RSS feed during the week:

• Where Does Your Money Go? Have you ever wondered, as you buy things from corporate America, exactly which billionaire’s pockets you were lining? This special report from Forbes allows you to map corporate brands to the wealthy people behind them. Some of these I knew, such as the folks behind Aldi being behind Trader Joes as well. Some I didn’t, such as the Koch Brothers being behind Brawny, or some of the same folks being behind both Burger King and Budweiser. It’s like a giant game of concentration.
• Historical Money. In the musical Tenderloin, one of the songs makes reference to a “double eagle”, and I’ve always wondered what that was. I found my answer in this Mental Floss article, which looks at 10 of the lesser known coins in the US. This is more than just Suzies and Sacajaweas. It is things like Gold Buffalos, Unions, Stellas, and various odd coin denominations such as ½¢, 2¢, 3¢, 20¢, half-dimes, and $3. Speaking of the ½¢, here’s another related item: Why are coupons worth ¹/₁₀₀^th of a cent? Hint: The answer goes back to trading stamps. Remember those?
• Food Issues. Another twofer of food items. The first looks at a niche in the world of Chinese restaurants in Monterey Park, CA: Organic Chinese Food. Monterey Park is an Asian community east of Los Angeles, home to loads and loads of great Chinese restaurants. Many of these place the emphasis on quick and cheap. A few are bucking the trend attempting to go for organic and healthy cuisine (something that would go well in West LA), and the article looks at their struggles. Also food-related is a petition effort from a number of food bloggers to get Kraft to remove the food dyes from their Mac&Cheese. Of course, what they fail to realize is that one eats Kraft Mac & Cheese expressly for the food dye (it’s a food group, don’tcha know?); if you want healthy food for your family, don’t depend on the corporations — make it yourself! Great mac and cheese isn’t hard to make.
• Plumbing Issues. This one I discovered through Boing Boing: An article about a fellow who buys a new house, has a drain problem, calls a plumber, and enters into the rabbit hole of plumbing problems. This is something I’ve run into — especially the situation of tarpaper sewage pipes, which we had in our front yard (our house was built in 1962). Plumbing is one of the reasons I hate houses built on concrete slabs — I still remember, as a kid, having plumbing leaks under the slab and having to rip up the carpets and jackhammer the floor.
• Body Issues and Acceptance. One of the folks I read on Livejournal is TheFerrett. A wonderful writer, he often has very insightful essays (for example, his recent essay on being the dumb one in the room). This week he reposted an essay he had originally posted over at Fetlife, a fetish-oriented bulletin board. This essay looked at body image from the genitalia point of view, noting that whatever you’ve got, there’s someone else that finds it sexy. This essay hit a nerve with a lot of people — it is a very positive statement of body acceptance, and one that many people need to remember. It is something to think about everytime you see a couple and go: Why is he/she with her/him? The answer is because each has something the other loves. Related to this: The Nu Project kickstarter, as of when I write this, has about 3 hours left. This is your last chance to get the Nu Project book at a discounted price; the Nu project presents pictures of women of all shapes and sizes, taken in their homes, demonstrating that all bodies are beautiful.

Music: If Not Now When? (Debbie Friedman): “Kumi Lach”

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)