Tag: battle-of-the-sexes

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 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”

I’m eating lunch in an office that is half-unpacked, so today you get a news chum collection that I actually wrote up Tuesday night, and was just waiting to post. So off we go…

First, we have some surveys that are likely to show up on next week’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me. The first survey deals with women’s preferences regarding men, and I’ve already mentioned this one earlier this week — the survey that showed that Australian women prefer men with bigger organs (and I’m not referring to the count of their pipes). Since there, there have been a number of good posts related to the subject; in particular, this post on the subject by The Ferrett. Boing Boing also had some interesting observations (note: includes CGI pictures), and points out some obvious facts most discussions miss.

The second survey is for the ladies:  This one notes that men prefer their women natural. In other words: there’s no need for a Brazilian Wax. Men prefer their women to look like women. Further, unwaxed may be healthier for the women as it reduces infection. Lastly, there is a survey out of France regarding the utility of brassieres. Oh, Peter Sagal… these surveys are calling you.

I’d also like to note that last week was Sexual Assault Awareness Week. The young men at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville took an interesting step in this battle. About 30 men donned high heels as part of the “Walk A Mile in Her Shoes” event. This is the second year that SIUE has held the “Walk A Mile in Her Shoes” activity and the eighth year that the university has observed Sexual Assault Awareness Week on its campus. Organizers said the shoe activity was designed to help men develop a sense of empathy toward the women in their lives. Walk A Mile in Her Shoes is a national campaign that was organized in 2001 was a way to build public awareness of sexual violence issues.

Lastly, here’s a little something Gene Spafford posted on Facebook: The Average Woman from Every Country. Basically, a photographer took more than 4000 photos of women from various countries, and then blended the results. I’m guessing there was some self selection for what the photographer considered beautiful, for the faces seem somewhat similar to me.

Music: Foggy Mountain Banjo (Flatt & Scruggs and the Foggy Mountain Boys): “Home Sweet Home”