The Atlantic published a story this morning relaying a summary of the findings of two researchers, Viren Swami and Martin Tovée, that men who "idealized" larger breasts on women also tend to be more hostile to women. For their new article entitled "Men’s Oppressive Beliefs Predict Their Breast Size Preferences in Women," (found in Archives of Sexual Behavior) Swami and Tovée conducted an experiment wherein they asked white British men to rate five (computer-simulated) women based on which they found most and least desirable. All of the images were exactly the same, except for their breast size, with the men having the ability to rotate the images 360 degrees. Probably unsurprisingly, the subjects rated highest the medium-sized breasts, overall.
What is perhaps more surprising, though, was the corresponding results found when the subjects were asked a few additional questions about their dispositions towards women. The following three prompts (in addition to others) were shown to the respondents:
1. "Intoxication among women is worse than intoxication among
men." This prompt was meant to gauge men's attitudes towards
women.
2. ''I feel that many times women flirt with men just to tease
them or hurt them." This was meant as a scale of hostility
towards women.
3. "Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more
refined sense of culture and good taste." This
prompt was a test of so-called "benevolent sexism" towards
women.
In all three categories, the researchers found that men who preferred larger breast sizes corresponded to the men who engaged in more sexist thought and more extreme hostility towards women.
While this may be puzzling to some or seemingly explained as a manifestation of so-called instinctual reproductive preferences to others, the actual explanation to me (and probably to some other women) appears to be fairly obvious. Breasts on women are a (or maybe, the most) readily-identifiable difference which many people associate with the two accepted examples of gender. Larger breasts on a woman make her more "different" from a man, and in keeping with the hierarchy of the two genders, a lesser individual.
This study of course can not be accepted as universal or even far-reaching as it sampled only one type of respondent, but I suspect that the results would be quite similar if it was conducted in the United States, or if it took answers from non-white men.
Keep in mind the widespread dichotomy of female prototypes: virgin or mother (and in Christian cultures, these are often melded into one, rather than two stages of the same mold of woman) vs. whore. According to social dictates, our mothers (even those who are well-endowed) rarely show any cleavage, and those who do are often ridiculed behind their backs by their kids' friends and other mothers. On the opposite end is the objectified woman of advertising and TV, the "whore," who often has large breasts and often wears more revealing outfits. One of these sets of women is obviously more often the recipient of respect from men than is the other, and it happens to be the one to which men can not help but to relate.
The lesson here is not that men who like large breasts are bad, or that women who have them are. Rather, it is that we must strive to live in a society where people do not see physical difference and assume anything from it, especially in the area of gender. What we should want is what Michael Kimmel would call "A Degendered Society," one in which men and women were no longer seen as opposites, let alone members of different castes.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
The Soda Ban-d Wagon...
This week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first-of-its-kind ban on the sale of sugary drinks over sixteen ounces in restaurants was due to go into effect, but was at the last minute blocked by New York State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling. Contrary to popular assumption, though, the Judge did not put forth an outright ban on Bloomberg's initiative, but rather took issue with the way it was attempted by the Mayor. Specifically, Tingling argued that Bloomberg and the New York Board of Health's committed what he deemed a breach of the separation of powers by passing such legislation. He also argued that, because larger sugar-based drinks could still be purchased in supermarkets and convenience stores, the ban would be "more troubling" than the drinks themselves because they would unfairly affect the restaurant industry.
Wait a minute. This food legislation would not be the only thing in New York to only target that industry. For example, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, also can not be put towards prepared food at restaurants. Was that measure meant to hurt the food service industry? No. It was intended to get people slightly healthier by forcing them to get into supermarkets and cooking for themselves. So where is the uproar about that stipulation?
Furthermore, this ban wouldn't actually stop anyone from ingesting more than sixteen ounces of sugar-crap. If restaurants really are that concerned about the effect of the ban, why not drop a small amount of their greed and offer free or discounted refills, like restaurants in virtually every other city in the country? One may argue that that would lead to people taking advantage of the opportunity to endlessly refill their cups, but that one would not be thinking logically. The easy fix would be to establish a time limit for said refills, say within an hour of paying for their initial drink. This would have the added benefit of forcing people to occasionally get up from gluttonously gorging to refill their own cups, shaving a much-needed few calories off of their meals.
And by the way, Bloomberg nay-sayers, this is not the first ban against the sale of certain types of drinks in restaurants. This year, Concord, Massachusetts banned the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles under one liter. The aim of this is obviously not to tackle obesity, but rather to tackle the absurd amount of waste caused by their disposal. The effect, though, is still that people wishing to buy that particular item will have to do so from a store rather than a restaurant. Where's the backlash against that city's "nanny" mayor? Almost nowhere. While some Concord business owners have expressed displeasure with the new law, they plan simply to sell larger bottles. In nearby Cambridge, too, Bloomberg-esque laws are being considered with their mayor lauding the large soda ban and considering a similar one.
All in all, there is some merit to the arguments of some that this law treads lightly over people's freedom of choice. Then again, the same could be said about laws prohibiting the sale of dangerous illicit drugs or prostitution. And while those laws too are questionable, if we look at the numbers, it's quite clear that unhealthy food choices are the bigger (and more costly) threat.
Wait a minute. This food legislation would not be the only thing in New York to only target that industry. For example, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), aka food stamps, also can not be put towards prepared food at restaurants. Was that measure meant to hurt the food service industry? No. It was intended to get people slightly healthier by forcing them to get into supermarkets and cooking for themselves. So where is the uproar about that stipulation?
Furthermore, this ban wouldn't actually stop anyone from ingesting more than sixteen ounces of sugar-crap. If restaurants really are that concerned about the effect of the ban, why not drop a small amount of their greed and offer free or discounted refills, like restaurants in virtually every other city in the country? One may argue that that would lead to people taking advantage of the opportunity to endlessly refill their cups, but that one would not be thinking logically. The easy fix would be to establish a time limit for said refills, say within an hour of paying for their initial drink. This would have the added benefit of forcing people to occasionally get up from gluttonously gorging to refill their own cups, shaving a much-needed few calories off of their meals.
And by the way, Bloomberg nay-sayers, this is not the first ban against the sale of certain types of drinks in restaurants. This year, Concord, Massachusetts banned the sale of single-serving plastic water bottles under one liter. The aim of this is obviously not to tackle obesity, but rather to tackle the absurd amount of waste caused by their disposal. The effect, though, is still that people wishing to buy that particular item will have to do so from a store rather than a restaurant. Where's the backlash against that city's "nanny" mayor? Almost nowhere. While some Concord business owners have expressed displeasure with the new law, they plan simply to sell larger bottles. In nearby Cambridge, too, Bloomberg-esque laws are being considered with their mayor lauding the large soda ban and considering a similar one.
All in all, there is some merit to the arguments of some that this law treads lightly over people's freedom of choice. Then again, the same could be said about laws prohibiting the sale of dangerous illicit drugs or prostitution. And while those laws too are questionable, if we look at the numbers, it's quite clear that unhealthy food choices are the bigger (and more costly) threat.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Is Alan Grayson onto something?
This Friday, Congressman Alan Grayson (D, FLA) made the bold move of challenging the target of the recent sequester with the suggestion that instead of cuts to domestic programs that will result in heavy loss of jobs we take aim abroad by simply ending our military objectives in Afghanistan. As he lamented, the crippling cuts to programs intended to alleviate the burdens of affording food and oil to heat American homes, would save us roughly the same amount of money as would pulling our troops out of the seemingly unwinnable war in Afghanistan (how would we know if we won anyway? Check out this interesting article on our changing objectives.).
Even though Grayson's proposed bill-- to end the war in 30 days time, unless President Obama felt that would endanger the lives of U.S. servicepeople-- was blocked by Republicans before it could go to a vote, it still raises a couple of interesting points. One is, if our elected Republicans are so willing to make spending cuts or really do anything that would keep us from raising taxes on the wealthy, why block the bill from even entering into debate? Even if it could not garner the support it would need to pass, even if it didn't turn out to be a good idea, it would at least force the people whose JOBS it is to debate issues of national financial policy to actually do so. Who knows, maybe even something really crazy would happen and someone might actually come up with another idea from listening to the discussion...
The second question Grayson's idea brings to mind is What exactly is going on in Afghanistan? With no more Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden lurking about, our fight against "terrorism" (whatever that means in this case) has become faceless, and this has had terrible effects on the collective American psyche. Sure, some might be able to sleep better knowing that those two particular men are no longer a threat, but what does their absence really guarantee? They did not personally carry out any attacks against Americans, yet we still seem more at ease without them. Has the assumed threat really changed? Young people are still being recruited into militant Islamist organizations to carry out the dirty work, and there's little evidence to suggest that our being there is doing all that much more to stop it than would energy put into reducing the circumstances that lead these fighters to their demise. Unfortunately, we still have troops on the ground risking their lives and little American attention being paid to them. I don't know if Grayson is onto something or not, but at least he's reminding us that there are other alternatives and bringing our forces back home is one of them.
Even though Grayson's proposed bill-- to end the war in 30 days time, unless President Obama felt that would endanger the lives of U.S. servicepeople-- was blocked by Republicans before it could go to a vote, it still raises a couple of interesting points. One is, if our elected Republicans are so willing to make spending cuts or really do anything that would keep us from raising taxes on the wealthy, why block the bill from even entering into debate? Even if it could not garner the support it would need to pass, even if it didn't turn out to be a good idea, it would at least force the people whose JOBS it is to debate issues of national financial policy to actually do so. Who knows, maybe even something really crazy would happen and someone might actually come up with another idea from listening to the discussion...
The second question Grayson's idea brings to mind is What exactly is going on in Afghanistan? With no more Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden lurking about, our fight against "terrorism" (whatever that means in this case) has become faceless, and this has had terrible effects on the collective American psyche. Sure, some might be able to sleep better knowing that those two particular men are no longer a threat, but what does their absence really guarantee? They did not personally carry out any attacks against Americans, yet we still seem more at ease without them. Has the assumed threat really changed? Young people are still being recruited into militant Islamist organizations to carry out the dirty work, and there's little evidence to suggest that our being there is doing all that much more to stop it than would energy put into reducing the circumstances that lead these fighters to their demise. Unfortunately, we still have troops on the ground risking their lives and little American attention being paid to them. I don't know if Grayson is onto something or not, but at least he's reminding us that there are other alternatives and bringing our forces back home is one of them.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Rand Paul is Right (Sometimes...)
Admittedly, I have taken issue in the past with some of the Pauls' (both Ron and Rand) stances. Yes, in theory, an almost non-existent government would be wonderful. But reread some of your early to middle political theory, gentlemen, laws and structure are what allowed us to emerge from the dark ages of pre-civilization ("nasty, brutish, and short," anyone?). Even today when we almost undoubtedly will not revert to the days of killing one another for survival, we still need some government. I'm definitely not saying that every aspect of so-called society was a good idea, or even that most of them were, but we've advanced to a point where the general basis of our economic and social structure is not going anywhere and we still need government intervention at times to keep it even a little bit fair. Be honest with yourselves, if we did not have programs like Affirmative Action or laws like the American Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act, we would still be living in a world not just mostly but completely dominated by rich, white males. (Side note: we need to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act already.) So, sorry Ron and Rand, we need some government assistance (and remember, we would not need so much if we had not in the past had government mandates meant specifically to create the unequal footing we now have to combat). Regardless, I maintain a certain amount of respect for your message and basic principles. Anybody who has read 1984 undoubtedly should admit the danger of allowing your government to become too controlling an entity, and yesterday on the Senate floor Rand Paul got it right.
Filibusters are a pain in the arse and are sometimes used in entirely the wrong ways, to fight against the wrong things (for instance, in the case of Strom Thurmond's still record-holding 24 hour-plus diatribe against the aforementioned Civil Rights Act). Other times, though, they are used to command attention to issues which are truly deserving and the use of drones most certainly qualify. The opposition to John Brennan's appointment as the new head of the C.I.A. is NOT the same as the recent fight to keep Chuck Hagel from assuming the role as Secretary of Defense. The obstruction of the Hagel appointment was largely a struggle of partisanship and mostly another excuse to challenge anything and everything Obama tries to accomplish. It was less about his qualifications than it was about the unquestionably swallowed stipulation that nobody in the U.S. ever say anything remotely critical of Israel, one of the many unfair rules imposed by the unacknowledged controlling religious faction. By the way, it is not very consistent to exclaim that the government should not be controlling our lives while simultaneously freaking out when somebody criticizes the unapologetic and often wrong actions of a government ally. But I digress...
John Brennan is a different sort of beast, as is the argument against him. This is not about a couple of remarks made throughout a long career that go against the grain. This is about this:
This is an extremely simple document intended to protect YOU from being targeted by one of the scarier pieces of technology to come into existence in history. Drones should terrify you, just ask the good people of Pakistan, or Brooklyn. (Re: Unexplained Drone Over Brooklyn ). Even more than the drones themselves should terrify you, the complete lack of a solid explanation about whether our federal government will use them against U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil (like it's much better when it takes place elsewhere), should have you trembling. We have a Constitution. It states that American citizens suspected of crimes have the right to due process. Trial by jury. No cruel or unusual punishment. Sure, that last part has always had a foggy definition, but certainly its authors would have considered drones "unusual", to say the least. If John Brennan won't accept that, we should have a problem approving his becoming the head of one of the most powerful parts of our system.
Senator Paul was not even asking that we nix the drone program (something I'm sure a lot of people would support, if they had access to information allowing them to make informed decisions about it). He simply requested that his co-"workers" join his bandwagon and demand that we refrain from using them to summarily execute people within our own territory and that the executive branch provide a detailed explanation as to the supposed legality of their use. Oh, my mistake, he always wants the President to recall the long-faded memory of the distant past (2007) when he said that America does not torture people. This should be something we all agree on : We do not fucking torture. Even if Shep is right and it is hazy what exactly we define as "torture," that definition should probably include being denied the peace of mind in believing that you won't be killed by a drone in your own backyard.
Filibusters are a pain in the arse and are sometimes used in entirely the wrong ways, to fight against the wrong things (for instance, in the case of Strom Thurmond's still record-holding 24 hour-plus diatribe against the aforementioned Civil Rights Act). Other times, though, they are used to command attention to issues which are truly deserving and the use of drones most certainly qualify. The opposition to John Brennan's appointment as the new head of the C.I.A. is NOT the same as the recent fight to keep Chuck Hagel from assuming the role as Secretary of Defense. The obstruction of the Hagel appointment was largely a struggle of partisanship and mostly another excuse to challenge anything and everything Obama tries to accomplish. It was less about his qualifications than it was about the unquestionably swallowed stipulation that nobody in the U.S. ever say anything remotely critical of Israel, one of the many unfair rules imposed by the unacknowledged controlling religious faction. By the way, it is not very consistent to exclaim that the government should not be controlling our lives while simultaneously freaking out when somebody criticizes the unapologetic and often wrong actions of a government ally. But I digress...
John Brennan is a different sort of beast, as is the argument against him. This is not about a couple of remarks made throughout a long career that go against the grain. This is about this:
This is an extremely simple document intended to protect YOU from being targeted by one of the scarier pieces of technology to come into existence in history. Drones should terrify you, just ask the good people of Pakistan, or Brooklyn. (Re: Unexplained Drone Over Brooklyn ). Even more than the drones themselves should terrify you, the complete lack of a solid explanation about whether our federal government will use them against U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil (like it's much better when it takes place elsewhere), should have you trembling. We have a Constitution. It states that American citizens suspected of crimes have the right to due process. Trial by jury. No cruel or unusual punishment. Sure, that last part has always had a foggy definition, but certainly its authors would have considered drones "unusual", to say the least. If John Brennan won't accept that, we should have a problem approving his becoming the head of one of the most powerful parts of our system.
Senator Paul was not even asking that we nix the drone program (something I'm sure a lot of people would support, if they had access to information allowing them to make informed decisions about it). He simply requested that his co-"workers" join his bandwagon and demand that we refrain from using them to summarily execute people within our own territory and that the executive branch provide a detailed explanation as to the supposed legality of their use. Oh, my mistake, he always wants the President to recall the long-faded memory of the distant past (2007) when he said that America does not torture people. This should be something we all agree on : We do not fucking torture. Even if Shep is right and it is hazy what exactly we define as "torture," that definition should probably include being denied the peace of mind in believing that you won't be killed by a drone in your own backyard.
Poehler-Fey-Swiftgate, or Why Taylor Swift is a Hypocrite
Ok, Miss Swift, this week you made headlines yet again by (yet again) bemoaning the free publicity you've been given being mocked by those more talented than yourself. Your songs are cute (sometimes), you're beautiful, aaaand that is the extent of it. It was undoubtedly rude of Kanye West to take your mic and interrupt your speech at the VMAs, but let's be real here: he did more for your career with that move than a thousand of your doppelganger songs about failed relationships ever could have. Still, it was okay for you to be peeved about that; nobody expects to face fame's wrath while they are literally still on stage accepting an award, especially from a fellow musician.
Your backlash against Amy Poehler and Tina Fey, however, has gone too far. This week, you told Vanity Fair that Katie Couric, one of your "favorite people" (Really? Did you ever actually watch any of her serious interviews? Or are you basing this solely on her role in Shark Tale and interview with Bieber?), relayed to you a quote that "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women," when asked what you thought of the rather tame joke they made at the Golden Globes, to keep you away from Michael J. Fox's son. Rightfully, Fey and Poehler's response has been little more than to suggest you learn to take a joke, a sentiment echoed by most of the world. But there's something else missing here.
Taylor, you have committed the very sin about which you are-- pardon my french-- bitching. Amy Poehler and Tina Fey are comedians. They are paid to be funny and when hosting awards shows, that entails poking fun at celebrities. You want to be famous, expect to get fun of for the things that got you famous and in your case that is dating around. Their joke was only different from the ones countless other people have made about you in their specific choice of male reference, but trust me the idea was not new. What's new is that you are now trying to tear down the joke because it was made by women. Let that soak in. Women whose job it is to be funny, you want not to be funny because it offends you. Sorry, Taylor, comedy is offensive: that's what makes it funny. You've made a fortune (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/taylor-swift-net-worth/ ) lambasting the saps/a-holes/sometimes probably hypothetical guys you've dated and said it's "fair game" for them to write songs in response. So how come it's not fair game for two other ladies to say anything about the love life you've made all too public?
In closing, here's a little advice from Captain Hindsight.
Your backlash against Amy Poehler and Tina Fey, however, has gone too far. This week, you told Vanity Fair that Katie Couric, one of your "favorite people" (Really? Did you ever actually watch any of her serious interviews? Or are you basing this solely on her role in Shark Tale and interview with Bieber?), relayed to you a quote that "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women," when asked what you thought of the rather tame joke they made at the Golden Globes, to keep you away from Michael J. Fox's son. Rightfully, Fey and Poehler's response has been little more than to suggest you learn to take a joke, a sentiment echoed by most of the world. But there's something else missing here.
Taylor, you have committed the very sin about which you are-- pardon my french-- bitching. Amy Poehler and Tina Fey are comedians. They are paid to be funny and when hosting awards shows, that entails poking fun at celebrities. You want to be famous, expect to get fun of for the things that got you famous and in your case that is dating around. Their joke was only different from the ones countless other people have made about you in their specific choice of male reference, but trust me the idea was not new. What's new is that you are now trying to tear down the joke because it was made by women. Let that soak in. Women whose job it is to be funny, you want not to be funny because it offends you. Sorry, Taylor, comedy is offensive: that's what makes it funny. You've made a fortune (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/singers/taylor-swift-net-worth/ ) lambasting the saps/a-holes/sometimes probably hypothetical guys you've dated and said it's "fair game" for them to write songs in response. So how come it's not fair game for two other ladies to say anything about the love life you've made all too public?
In closing, here's a little advice from Captain Hindsight.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Thoughts on the #Snowquester...
With snow due to hit and already hitting some of our comrades a little further south, the Twittersphere is of course bombarded by ridiculous overreaction and #asinine hashtags. Nothing new or shocking about this but today's trendy choice being #snowquester and #snowquestration is especially irksome, for a few reasons.
Most obvious of these is the simple punch-me-face quality of it (seriously, whoever thought of this, don't let your phrase catching on allow you to think it is cute or you are clever). D.C., & co., quit being such cry-babies. If Canadians whined about snow every single time a few measly inches accumulated, our neighbor to the North would go from being our slightly dorky hat bucking up and absorbing the real precipitation for us to a horrid beast of wimpishness that we would have to seriously consider forcibly removing from the continent with a sharpened hockey skate. Seriously, put on some boots and a coat and stop acting like you didn't know that it snows where you live this time of year.
Much more bothersome than how absurdly the population continues to react about a little snow, though, is the fact that they're tying it into something that actually IS a big deal but about which they don't bother to tweet even half as much. While we might be using a (moderately) fancy and indirect term to describe the domestic cuts enacted this week, try not to be fooled: Congress just passed an austerity program. Let that sink in. You know all those people that have been protesting and rioting all over much of Europe for the past few years? That's because they know what austerity measures are and actually take issue with them. America, you would do well to follow their example (at least a little bit) by at least admitting that the sequester is serious (it is going to affect you and a lot of the people you know) and demanding that something be done about it. Or, you could continue on your same path of being fine not only with Congress failing to compromise even the slightest bit with each other to fix this deceivingly huge issue, but also with their taking today off because of a little wet weather while you manage to trudge in and out of work at regular hours.
Most obvious of these is the simple punch-me-face quality of it (seriously, whoever thought of this, don't let your phrase catching on allow you to think it is cute or you are clever). D.C., & co., quit being such cry-babies. If Canadians whined about snow every single time a few measly inches accumulated, our neighbor to the North would go from being our slightly dorky hat bucking up and absorbing the real precipitation for us to a horrid beast of wimpishness that we would have to seriously consider forcibly removing from the continent with a sharpened hockey skate. Seriously, put on some boots and a coat and stop acting like you didn't know that it snows where you live this time of year.
Much more bothersome than how absurdly the population continues to react about a little snow, though, is the fact that they're tying it into something that actually IS a big deal but about which they don't bother to tweet even half as much. While we might be using a (moderately) fancy and indirect term to describe the domestic cuts enacted this week, try not to be fooled: Congress just passed an austerity program. Let that sink in. You know all those people that have been protesting and rioting all over much of Europe for the past few years? That's because they know what austerity measures are and actually take issue with them. America, you would do well to follow their example (at least a little bit) by at least admitting that the sequester is serious (it is going to affect you and a lot of the people you know) and demanding that something be done about it. Or, you could continue on your same path of being fine not only with Congress failing to compromise even the slightest bit with each other to fix this deceivingly huge issue, but also with their taking today off because of a little wet weather while you manage to trudge in and out of work at regular hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)