That’s all changing, however!

Now, if you want to follow me on facebook, please click the link to the right to go to my NEW facebook page.  See you there!

I forget fuchsia.  Something that screams “I’m trying too hard!”  Tacky plastic heel pink.  Barbie’s dream house condensed into one gendered message and reguritated over my fingernails.

A generic Friday night.  This color.

It’s a step above an impulse purchase like gum; seediness slightly better than truck-stop restroom condoms. A clear indication of intention.  The discarded matchstick on the sidewalk seconds after it’s served its purpose.  Spent.

Lit.  This color.

So like red, yet lacking in boldness.  A subversive statement. An advertisement of itself: $10 per ride as long as you bounce it on your knee and let it call you “daddy”!  Right next to righteous indignation, lust or the day before regret.

A siren song.  This color.

The shadow of the sidekick.  The call to an island you no longer inhabit.  A vacationing mortal ascended upon Mount Olympus.  Munchausen’s for dummies.  A transcript of a spectacle, allowing you to experience feeling by proxy.

Camouflaged.  This color.

An attempt to be noticed so pathetic it’s universally ignored.

Desperate.  This color.

.is love blind?.

The feminist blogosphere is (rightly) up-in-arms over the mockery o f the women on the FOX spectacle “More to Love”.  There is nothing revolutionary about fat-mockery or bigger men chasing big women.  What strikes me as most fascinating about this show is how the women’s preferences are still never considered.  Like other reality “romance” shows,  it is assumed that the object of all these women’s undying affections will be the dud they’ve selected; the supposition  is women always fall in love with whomever extols the most cliché romantic notion of love or with the idea of love itself and that  they have no expectations beyond that.

Women only get their turn to select from (supposedly) eligible bachelors once they’ve been rejected on national television.  For example, every “Bachlorette” only gets a selection of eligible bachelors once sent home on a previous show (and if the public feels sorry enough for her plight).   And, while Luke, the plus-sized player on “More to Love”, does seem like a genuinely nice, three-dimensional sort of fellow, the idea that bigger women  are only attracted to bigger men is as ridiculous as assuming women are only into men for their money.

In his blog, Gender Studies professor Hugo Schwyzer comments that “for men who have not yet extricated themselves from homosocial competition, their own self-esteem and sense of intra-male status may decline in direct proportion to their girlfriend’s weight gain”. In short, the heavier the girlfriend, the worse men feel about themselves. As if women exist solely as self-esteem boosters for men or as though relationships aren’t for the mutual partnership and satisfaction of both individuals but to serve as benchmarks of a socially-limited notion of success.

Forget that our culture is already unforgiving to anyone (especially women) not virtually emaciated.  As a size 8 in high school, I was told by a classmate I would be more attractive if I “had smaller thighs”.  I’ve known people willing (and attracted) to be(ing) with bigger women only behind close doors or in public in towns where no one knew them.  Anyone who watches “More to Love” for the first time will be quick to note the sense of desperation all these women extol.  In aside interviews, each woman uncomfortably confesses to feeling that this show is her only opportunity to be appreciated and even loved.  It isn’t to say that everyone appearing on reality television isn’t desperate for something- usually money or fame-  but to think that a single televised “match-making” program is one’s only shot at coupling up is beyond sad.

Other websites devoted to up-to-the-minute pop culture disseminate other forms of fat-hatred specifically related to females.   The website “TextsFromLastNight” publishes the texts people supposedly forgot sending in their inebriation state.  Alarming is the number of texts announcing how many overweight women are at bars, how disgusting overweight people are or even, if there is “FUPA”* present.

What seems to be missing anywhere is pronouncement that our culture is so shallow, categories of people are being treated as sub-human simply for their proportions. The “health” argument doesn’t fly:  a majority of slender people are genetically thin and do little to nothing to help their health.  Not eating (or eating only junk), imbibing whole meals of alcohol and getting your only cardio from sex or running from the law are not healthful lifestyle options.  And, yet, many of my “fat” friends are vegetarian, eat organic and low-sugar, exercise dutifully and still can barely seem to budge the weight.

There are those people who eat very health-consciouslly and exercise routinely to maintain a figure. You don’t usually hear them mocking others. They, on the other hand, like so many others will use the “biology” argument for the perferance of borderline anorexic shapes. Supposedly, rail-thin body types are genetically encoded as pleasing. This is false. Historically, larger shapes have had the most sexual appeal as size was indicative of wealth and larger women could nourish a fetus for a longer incubation period. Attractiveness is primarily cultural and socially specific to the time. So, if health and biology aren’t the answer, sheer discrimination of difference is. Where does the last socially acceptable form of discrimination (next to discrimination of the impoverished) come from? Fear.

Fat-phobia is just that, I’ve come to realize.  The fear of fat stems from our culture’s mockery of plus-size people as horror stories.  Most fat-slander originates from slender people who may or may not fear that they too will one day have “more to love”.  The fear part, them, comes from knowing the culture which so coddles them for their physique will reject them for anything else they have to offer.  Because culture norms are shaped by behavior and opinion, perhaps the key to everyone being loved is to think of everyone as a loveable human being.  Radical, I know.

*FUPA, for people not in the know, stands for “fat upper pelvic/pubic area”.   Whole websites dedicated to “FUPA Hunting” have sprung up.

Lately, I’ve returned to my original writing roots of poetry and have even attempted a few short stories.  Beating my way through tacky metahors and other bad poetic devices made me realize that not all substantial media is non-fiction or even linear.  So, I’ve created a new section on this site to support poetry and/or prose.  Check the “Submit some Substance” section for ever growing details and Submit away!!

.the wink heard 'round the world.

Now that the election dust has settled and the campaign smoke has cleared, I feel I can finally fully-address my level of sheer repugnance for Sarah Palin. I’m only doing this because she refuses to pack it in and give it up. I had figured that if she won, I was stuck listening to her whenever she came out of Cheney’s old undisclosed bunker location and that if she lost, she would head back up to Alaska and return her focus to her state’s senatorial blunders and her family’s looming expectation. Instead, I have been treated to more Sarah Palin stories, interviews, news shows, and quotes than the guy I voted for. Less than two weeks after the most historic show of American solidarity since 9/11, we have abandoned our desire for hope and change and other positive symbols long since lost to our constant elitist money-hunger and back-stabbing bitchiness as a nation. Rather than give President-elect Barack Obama* the respect the position of popular vote winner or President used to command, we keep encouraging Sarah Palin and her 15-minutes of famous blunders.

During the entire election, no question bothered me more than: “I don’t understand why you don’t like Sarah Palin! As a woman, isn’t she everything you aspire to be?” The short answer to that question is NO (typically with some expletive or another in front of it and a look of revulsion so immediate it would make small children cry). The long answer, I believe, takes some explanation. When I would critique and criticize Sarah Palin in the past, I attempted to do so by looking only at her politics or of the way her politics and, therefore, image was being marketed. Some of the media did the same by

There are things, surprisingly enough, that I admire about Governor Palin. She is remarkably fierce. No, I don’t mean “fierce” in the Tyra-Banks-finger-snapping –“Work it, girl!” sort-of way. But, she is unrelentingly ferocious in a business that has long ago lost any sense of civility. To be admired and praised as female and not have any aspect of her gendered person hood demarcated by the sheer aggressiveness of her political (and personal) attacks is something Hillary Clinton could, sadly, not achieve.

Another thing Hillary couldn’t achieve that Palin had no problem conveying was her sex appeal.  Why anyone aspiring to the highest and most distinguished job in the nation also needs to be the object of  masturbatory fantasies is beyond me, but there you have it.  And, while the majority of Americans said they agreed with me in polls, the merchandising of Sarah Palin told a different story.   From poorly tarted-up dolls to porn videos done by Palin look-a-likes to companies using her name and likeness to sell the goods that looked similar to the ones she sported.  Of course, all this marketing doesn’t mean that Sarah Palin or her camp authorized nor enabled it.  Yet, it was out there and we bought it (and bought into it).  Looking like Sarah (or looking at her lasciviously) became our new national obsession and her persona, unchanging, played into it.  Knowing our nation collectively thought she was “cute”, she threw us that patented wink and a smile  to keep us wanting more.

Old burlesque tricks aside, my largest dislike for Sarah Palin is, actually, a non-gendered issue: I believe that she is marketing herself as the new “Maverick” President Bush (breakfast cereal action figure coming soon).   She really doesn’t seem to embody anything having to do with “integrity”, not even on the surface (as so many politicians do).  I wanted so badly to like her, as a woman, and to be able to view her as a sort of role model. However, as time is progressing, her zeal to keep herself in the public eye is proving more catty than confident. After attacking any media outlet which dared discuss daughter Bristol’s pregnancy (with or without the “teenage mother” angle) for intruding into the lives of children of candidates, Palin’s camp engaged in a media blitz to belittle Johnston, the father of Bristol’s son Trip, into silence for speaking out about his feelings. This type of attack is hypocritical on her part. While I don’t deny her the opportunity to get ahead, I question why she feels she must utilize tabloid tactics to do so.

This lack of integrity on her part is bleeding into her future political aspirations, namely her (supposed) plans to run for President of the United States in 2012.  Max Blumenthal of The Daily Beast reported that Palin nominated Wayne Anthony Ross for attorney general.  Ross, an attorney so far to the right he’s veered into totalitarianism,  who

“called homosexuals “degenerates,” leveled invective against an African-American student offended by a statue of a Klansman, vowed to undermine the sovereignty of Native American tribes, and allegedly defended men who rape their wives”,

is a long-time Palin ally.   Knowing that Ross’ attitudes towards women were Neanderthal at best, Palin hoped for a swift confirmation hearing.   Those hopes were dashed, however, when several lobbyists groups lodged complaints.  Now, her camp is reporting that she might un-endorse him because the publicity is bad- for her.

It’s bad enough that this woman who lacks respect for women (which is putting it nicely), continuously allows herself to be represented as a fantasy object and resorts to the basest behavior when dealing with personal attacks, but she doesn’t even stand by her crass convictions.

Sarah Palin, have you no shame?

*If you’re following my articles in any sort of chronological fashion, you know that I was one of the Ohioans randomly disenfranchised. I brought this to my local Board of Elections on Election Night and was able to re-register once they had located my former record and voted, provisionally, for Barack Obama.

.authored by something.of.substance.

.virtually life-like.

And, in yet another fit of retro-inspired, socially-conservative feminist backlash, you can now reproduce online! No kidding. The past decade has already been detrimental to the equality progress of women. The third-wave sexual revolution has been used as an excuse by women to objectify themselves. Shows like “Desperate Housewives”, “He’s Just Not That Into You” and even “Sex and the City” all highlight dating and mating as the universe in which women’s lives orbit. Jokes abound in popular culture about women’s shrill-ticking biological clocks. Whole franchises are built around “catching and trapping” potential husbands with online support groups and associated materials included! Heterosexual women don’t even have a chance at glimpsing a life outside the home.

The site MakeMeBabies is designed to be used by any gender in seemingly any combination. However, the site features a young, ecstatic-looking girl and mildly repulsed guy waiting to see their future offspring. Underneath their photos is this exclamatory headline:

“MakeMeBabies‘ unique technology will show you exactly (well… almost exactly…) what your future child with another person will look like!
We take both your photos, do some magic calculations, and congratulations! You have a new baby!”

Apparently, over ten million fake children have been created and I’m sure guys aren’t lining up to know if they and the Jonas Brothers will make beautifully-blended, DNA-replicated music together.

Much like the proliferation of celebrity-inspired shirts proclaiming one to be the “future Mrs. Insert-a-celeb”, you too can see the celluloid child created by a fantasy exchange with a celebu-tante of your choice. But, keep in mind that the “children” manufactured for these virtual photo albums are composite blends of looks only. They don’t take into account actual factors one should consider before attempting reproduction such as risk-factors for the woman (endometriosis, blood pressure), family genetic histories or even basic concerns such as necessary time, income and maturity to raise a child. In fact, the site’s only mention of anything more than a bright, kilo-watt smile going into successful procreation is issued in their disclaimer:

“Disclaimer:
MakeBeBabies [sic] is rendering a unique baby face based on your facial features – but real life genetics is far more complicated than that.
Use this site for your entertainment only.”

The danger of such a site is that only further encourages women to see themselves as nothing more than viable breeding machines. I’m not discounting motherhood by any means. But, to make a sport of reproducing diminishes its meaning. The truly disheartening aspect of this website is that it’s simple, exclamation studded language (!), links to “add” on popular social networking sites Facebook and MySpace and colorful display market it to girls far too young to see relationships only in terms of their reproductive opportunities. In fact, not only is this site marketed to those barely physically-able to conceive, but it does nothing to warn of realities that go along with sex, like sexually transmitted diseases or emotional consequences. Yet, these girls go to the site and become starry-eyed over the thought of the babies they and any semen-producing male in a twenty-five mile radius could generate. Teaching women to be marriage and baby-obsessed procreation hunters can’t start too early, I guess.

MakeMeBabies doesn’t make me want to go gaga over the thought of potential offspring. Instead, it mostly makes my skin crawl.

.the picture of (mental) health?.

When we see pictures of people in other countries looking as skeletal as Tori Spelling does in the one at left, we are usually asked to send money to help them build a well and buy rice.  But we aren’t in another country; we are in America.  And, here in America, when we see the protruding bones of others, we spend millions attempting to re-create how they did it.

When we publicly confront people with our supposition of their eating being abnormal, there is no doubt they will deny it. A key component of eating disorders are the cognitive distortions that keep you from seeing any problem with what you’re doing to correct your perceived problem with your body. Therefore, simply speculating (whether publicly or privately) that some star or another starves his or herself happy, does no good. If anything, it reinforces their mindset by demonstrating a need to acknowledge their obsession- their weight- for any reason. If there’s no choice someone will come right out and freely admit, “yes. I starve myself and purge on occasion when I actually eat”, why splash their Eating Disorder Denial (EDD) over the daily pages of gossip rags?

The latest to engage in EDD (whose past participants have included Lindsay Lohan and Mary-Kate Olsen) is Tori Spelling who recently blamed her skeletal figure on us just “not having seen her pregnant in the past few years”.   In past interviews, she blamed “tension with her mother”.  This is what happens when people start asking questions you cannot answer:  you blame.

No one would believe these excuses in a vacuum. Even though we are constantly inundated with visuals of rail-thin, ghastly gaunt women, we can still recognize someone who has all visible bones as unhealthy. Yet, we accept these excuses and they even help keep our society enmeshed in a body image crisis. When celebrities constantly deny their distortions and refer to their looks as “healthy” or the result of “losing baby weight” or “simply working out once a week”, they aide in enabling disordered eating for everyone (themselves included). Ours is a culture obsessed with celebrity. Part of our obsession  is driven with the seeming perfection of those we idolize and kill ourselves attempting to emulate. Even though we know, as graduates of high school health classes, that no person (especially over the age of 30) has a metabolism strong enough to waste them away, we accept their excuses and alter our perceptions to include what used to be disturbingly unhealthy as the new reference point for “normal”.  We engage in as much EDD as the people who do so to keep their disorder alive.

.we're supposed to believe this is what 50 extra lbs looks like.

Disordered eating stems from psychological issues. Simply being “too busy” to eat three meals a day or working out “a couple of times a week” or “not being pregnant” does not cause the kind of body mass index drop which needs to occur for our culture to take notice. In fact, in Tori’s case, she claims to have lost 40 lbs since giving birth, despite claiming to only gain 25 lbs while pregnant with daughter Stella.   That would put her at least 15 lbs past “healthy” since she was tiny before.  Yet, since thinning down to an extreme, she has rethought those  former weight gain numbers and announced that she actually gained “50 lbs” while pregnant with daughter Stella which would  still make her 10 lbs heavy of her pre-pregnancy weight (in the photo at top).  One has to wonder why all the weight waffling?

People with EDD justify everything. Her claim of never “counting calories but of eating healthy”, can be debunked by simply thinking about the calories found ina typical day’s diet as out-lined by the actress.

“Breakfast was yogurt, fruit and nuts. Lunch was homemade soup with a sweet potato or soy milk base. We’d snack on celery and peanut butter, and then I’d make lean protein with vegetables for dinner.”

According to The Daily Plate, a diet of the above listed food would be around calories 900 calories (if one upgraded to the “full-fat” options and larger portion sizes of everything named) and not 1,500 calorie minimum recommended for nursing mothers (your calorie requirement plus 300 caloires).

There is nothing healthy about that.

Yet, we as a society have developed the same cognitive distortions centered around eating that keeps . We believe that a 50 lb weight loss can be achieved with no work on our parts. We believe that weighing under 100lbs is not only an acceptably healthy weight for most people, but sexually desirable.  There’s nothing healthy about our thinking, either.

Extreme diet and exercise aside, underweight frames  are also often indicative of other addictive tendencies, such as drug addiction.  Stimulants like cocaine and crystal meth decrease appetite and increase metabolism.  They also alter brain chemicals to induce “feel good” sensations while taking them.  Drug addiction is a disease in and of itself, but, combined with body-image distortions and low feelings of self-worth, can simply aide a co-current disorder.

We are a culture dying to be desirable.  All of this weight obsession is not only not healthy, it isn’t normal.  When pre-teen girls end up in eating disorder clinics and in hospitals suffering cardiac arrests after following the “healthy” lifestyle of their favorite celebu-idol, we react with shock and disgust.   Yet we do nothing.  We are apassing down our psycholigcal obsession with disappearing in the name of “sexiness”.  We are teaching future generations that, as women (and some men), you could always be taking up less space and that that makes you more desirable, personally and professionally.

That being said, anyone engaged in a pattern of disordered eating (including the oft-misunderstood epidemic of binge eating) need the help of mental health professionals as well as medical professionals to correct the glitches in thinking which convince them that food acts in any way other than as a fuel.  Calling them out in a public arena serves to make them all the more resolved to battle against their body by focusing on their looks, something they already do with disasterous results.  And, because we have no intention of actually  helping those we proffer up as  cautionary tales for public consumption, we end up only making a mockery of our concern for ailments as deadly serious as anorexia.  With this blend of ambivalent denial and staged horror on our parts, is it really that shocking that starving oneself can be both glamorous and disconcerting, simultaneously?   Perhaps we should be donating $1 a day after all only, instead of sending emergency food kits, we can buy ourselves a clue.

.authored by something.of.substance.

.if she's breathing, she's obviously into it.

Why do Seth Rogan’s characters seem to always have to get their dates black out drunk to have sex with them? In “Knocked Up”, Rogan and an (initial) one-night stand Katherine Heigl were both so drunk they couldn’t communicate the condom issue which landed them in the title mess. In “The 40 year old Virgin”, Rogan scored only with the fall-over drunk bar flies. Even Rogan, in an interview with Starpulse, acknowledges that he prefers his women unwilling to engage in any action: “I gotta say, they should make a support group together, Blonde Girls Forced to Have Sex With Seth Rogen in Film,” Rogen joked. “You’re in there, Anna [Faris]. Sorry.” Drunken “conquests” aside, the forced sex he has with co-star Anna Faris in their new movie “Observe and Report” sounds like nothing short of rape.

What’s at issue here is that pesky concept of “informed consent”. Without having seen the movie, I am approaching the questionable scene at-hand from the stand-point of film reviews, press interviews and public commentary. During the scene depicted by the above screen shot, Farris’ character is beyond intoxicated on a combination of alcohol and anti-depressants.  Escorted home by mall cop Rogan, she vomits before he goes in to kiss her and eventually ends up in bed where he has sex with unconscious, puking torso.  What makes the scene “OK”, according to Rogan, is that she wakes up mid-fuck to ask him: “Why’d you stop, motherfucker??”.  This, everyone involved is telling us, is her consent…and our reason to laugh.  I, personally, don’t understand what’s supposed to be funny.

A poll of readers on The Huffington Post suggests others are not so humorless as I when it comes to the comedy of consent.  In an article commentary of the same scene described here, 36.46% of respondents voted that this sort of sex is “…a JOKE people. Get upset about more important things” while only 29.06% of those polled sided with the other end of the spectrum tha “[T]otally unacceptable. It’s sick and wrong”.  To put those stats into words, over one-third of readers find rape funny always with nearly three-quarters of people finding it funny at least sometimes.

As a sexual assault victims advocate, I have yet to meet a sexual assault survivor or friend / family member of a survivor who finds date rape funny. In fact, quite the opposite. Usually the survivor is so filled with shame that she consumed intoxicants in a culture which doesn’t expect that kind of outrageous behavior out of “proper” ladies , that she is hesitant to even report what happened, fearing she’s to blame.  And, if the survivor is male, the shame comes not only from our society’s intolerance toward same-sex interactions,  but the feeling that participating in a traditionally testosterone-condoned pastime of heavy drinking resulted in their victimization, effectively further “feminizing” them.  Either way, the point is it’s shameful to drink and be female (or handled like one).  The “love” scene in this movie goes further to victimize women by making it seem as though, no matter what state of consciousness, she should (and would!) always want it.  Making a poorly-timed mockery of a crime which occurs to  over 80% of females in this country isn’t a laughing matter.

But, as website The Frisky points out, what is Seth Rogan teaching the millions of teenage boys who will sneak into this average Joe comedy?  Ours is already a culture which condones and even glamorizes rape.  If this scene were part of a dramatic movie without the one-liner from Anna Farris to supposedly muck-up the consent issue, everyone would have no trouble agreeing what Rogan does is at least wrong, if not criminal.  But, because he’s supposed to be funny and the movie is billed as a comedy, the audience expects to laugh; date rape plus body fluids equals guffaws from discriminatiing audiences.  Yet, how discriminationg can teens and even adults s be who no longer have sex education while growing up nor exposure to sex and sexuality that isn’t skewed toward completely virginal (The Jonas Brothers and purity rings) or cash and carry (reality tv culture, any and all).  Adult commenters on The Frisky’s denouncement of the movie sadly varied between the two extremes numerically collected in The Huffington Post poll.

Male user “thegr8brownie” declared that it wasn’t rape because “an incapacitated person can’t call out the wrong name!”.  Female commenter “mikeyellenlee” backed up “thegr8brownie“‘s claim that it wasn’t an assault by adding: “No, that’s not rape. I’m on the same page as you. He even looks at her and says, “Brandi?” It’s so obvious that she just passed out during sex!

Female users Lynn and the PinkRanger, on the other hand, saw things completely differently.  Lynn replied to “@mikeyellenlee – that’s what I was thinking. He stops and says “Brandy?” like he doesn’t expect her to be passed out like that. I’m assuming that in the scene they start fooling around, she passes out, so he kind of stops right there while he tries to figure out what’s going on, and she tells him to keep going” with PinkRanger adding: “Reread that definition of what rape is that retro chic [another commenter] posted. If she is incapacitated to the point where shes passing out during, and especially if he keeps going, then its considered rape.”

Legally, anyone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol cannot give “informed consent”.  This means that any level of impairment in their motor skills and basic functioning also interfere with the decision making abilities necessary to  agree, safely, to sexual acts.  And, when it comes down to it, why would anyone want to have sex with someone passed out and/or vomiting?  There is nothing consensual or even sexy about it!  Waking mid-pump to slur encouragement does not fall under the umbrella of “informed consent” either.

Sex can be funny.  Mocking sexual blunders should be allowed.  However, a line needs to be drawn.  Seth Rogan repeatedly demonstrates that he needs to “force women” to have sex with him in his film roles.  The language is even his own.  If we all agree that “forcing” sex is rape, why do we still find it so funny?

.authored by something.of.substance.

(originally published 2/22/09 on WL  + addendum added  3/8/09)

The horror of intimate partner violence, as demonstrated by celebrity music couple Rihanna and Chris Brown, is in no way glamorous.  Or, so you’d think. Yet, teenagers interviewed by the Chicago Tribune not only supported Brown’s actions but started coming out as members of intimate partner violence themselves.  Here’s the twist:  they’re showing off the wounds they’re proud to have incurred in the name of “love”.

Not every teen interviewed by the paper condoned violence.  Some called it “bogus” and others said violence is never allowed.  These teens appear to be in the minority.  As written in the February 20th article for the Tribune:

“…other teens insist violence is sometimes justified in relationships.

While young fans have plastered Rihanna’s MySpace page with notes of support, many comments on Brown’s page express delight at the possibility that he battered a woman.

Kriana Jackson, a sophomore at Sullivan, said it’s a sign of a broader culture of acceptance of abuse.

“There was a girl at school this week with a scratch on her eye,” Jackson said. “She was talking openly about her boyfriend hitting her, but she was smiling and saying it was funny.”

Young people carry these attitudes into adulthood, experts say, and young targets of dating violence are more likely to succumb to aggression in later relationships. …”

Google searches for “Rhianna and Chris Brown in  love” are up.  YouTube videos like “Chris Brown & Rihanna KISSING” have seen their views jump into the multi-millions in the past week.  Comments are also rising accordingly.   Surprisingly (or maybe not), public opinion is split two ways.  Either intimate partner violence is seen as a “mistake”-

“god, EVERYONE makes mistakes. we’re not perfect. stop hating on chris and just imagine for a second, you’re in his position”

or indefensible-

“All men who hit women for any reason need to be eliminated period. Chris Brown you look like a woman beater.. I can see it in your eyes.. It’s sickening to see all these unreal affectionate pictures of these 2.. Don’t ever let a cute or pretty picture of a couple fool you. The handsome, talented man can hypnotize you with his fame and popularity, but is only good at putting on his act. In reality he mostly likely only has 3 brain cells..”.

What’s truly disturbing about this entire incident (actual violence aside) is that, as a society, we can’t seem to agree that violence and love aren’t the same thing!  In a culture which increasingly emulates everything celebrity, is sanctioning intimate partner violence as a glamorous (and  necessary) component of love,  one small step away from celebrating it?  Some teens, the purveyors of trends, certainly think so.  And, if celebrating it is going to be trendy, does that mean encouraging it is merely one tabloid photography leek away?

1 in 7 women will encounter a sexual assault or intimate partner violence at some time in her life.  If involved in teen dating intimate partner violence, she has a likelier chance of remodeling the same relationship as an adult.  And, not just female teens are at risk; girls thin k its acceptable to inflict bodily harm upon  their boyfriends just as same-sex couples are not immune from these types of statistics.

Perhaps we can use the celebu-fervor over the beating of Rihanna to enable a dialogue which doesn’t include “what she did to deserve it”.  Teen attitudes are a product of their environments- both at home and at school.   If their peers are egging on their bad behavior, their parents must do something to counteract it.  Utilizing examples which resonate can be a jumping off point for starting a conversation.

Certainly, teens themselves can also take a stand.  Everyone can.  People can accept that, unless your life is in immediate danger and you need to defend yourself against death, VIOLENCE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED.  No amount of nagging, yelling, accusing or cheating EVER warrants hitting, punching, biting, scratching, kicking, or the like.  If celebrities with all their riches and fame aren’t immune,  no one is.  If it’s every person’s problem, we need to take this opportunity to make everyone part of the solution.

ADDENDUM:  Since writing this piece, it has been rumored that beore the “fight” Rihanna threw Chris Brown’s phone, gave him herpes, called him names.  The victim-blaming in this situation, then, has been intermixed with a different kind of victim-blaming: blaming Rihanna for not leaving.  Everyone wants to know why she’d stay.  Without going into the entire psychology of  abuse cycles, I’d like to share that the public is just as much to blame for perpetuating the cycle of abuse in most relationships as the abuser themselves.

Specifically, in this instance, what makes me sick is that the same people for poo-poo Rhianna for not leaving are the ones blaming her for “causing” Chris Brown to hit her in the first place. Because staying comes down to a self-esteem issue which the abuser has worked on for, no doubt, a while before the full-scale physical abuse begins, it doesn’t help when the public at-large denigrates her self-worth further by accusing her of being the reason she was abused. That is probably what he has already said to her and so the public’s reinforcement of his reasoning only furthers her resolve to stay. He is found, by jury of public opinion, justified in his actions.

.authored by something.of.substance.

(originally posted 2/12/09 on WL)

.don't look now....

A Princeton University psychologist has just announced the results of a study concluding that men view women in bikinis as objects.

In other news, nudity makes men think of sex.

Feminists have long pointed out instances where women are objectified.  After enough time, society became a believer to the point where, today, women objectify themselves in the hopes of catching the eye of some guy.

Although the this truism has pervaded society long-enough for it to be conventional wisdom, Dr. Susan Fiske contends that men “can’t control” their objectification of scantily-clad females.

The study of 21 heterosexual men determined their level of “hostile” sexism- the belief that women have it in for men- or “benevolent” sexism- the belief that women have to fulfill certain gendered roles- through both questionnaire and brain scan.   This study showed that men who were the “hostile” sexist-type did not view bikini-clad women as having thoughts or feelings.

Additional questionnaires provided the additional information that all of the men see fully-clothed women as being in charge of their own actions while undressed and under-dressed women were viewed as needing to be “acted upon”.

Somewhere in here I’m sensing a new rape defense: “I really couldn’t help myself!  She needed me to attack her!”.

This study is dangerous because without properly reading all of the findings, one would be led  to believe that women “ask for it” by the way they dress.   Rape, the study should have reinforced, is about violence and not sex.  Sex is simply the weapon.  But, having a study report that (sexist) men dehumanize women comes dangerously close to “ok-ing” sexism…and assault.

However, simply because someone finds something desirable does not mean they forcefully act upon it; liking a new car won’t make you forget that stealing it is criminal.   Similarly, even though men’s evolutionary instincts may be to propagate the species with  multiple partners, many have no problem with monogamy.  Biology does not direct all behavior.

Now that the proof is out there, it will be interesting to see whether women continue to sling their bodies about  as currency.  Knowing they aren’t thought of as human or capable of emotion can’t be much more demoralizing than letting everyone judge you based solely on how you look.