Eggs and Motherhood

I went to dinner with my friend Rennat recently and I was telling her about how I had considered donating sperm in an effort to raise money to fly back home more often. Ren immediately thought of the movie The Kids are All Aright and tried whole-heartedly to convince me out of doing it. (I had already been convinced by my girlfriend, Amy, but nevertheless Ren felt obliged to press me against it) I told her that if I weren't concerned about having a bunch of offspring running around, I would not mind. Still, in some sense, I was not really convinced I would view the children of my sperm with people I did not know as my children. Ren had a different view on the matter. She said, in effect, that not only would she consider them her children in some sense, but that it is just different (apparently by levels of degree) between male sperm and female eggs.

Now, to give her credit, there is some serious truth to that. Biologically speaking, men have limitless sperm while females have a fixed number of eggs. However, that "fixed number" is usually around 1.5 million. So despite their being a fixed number, I would not say it is a common occurrence that they run out. The idea that concerned me most was that, in some way, motherhood was better/more important than fatherhood.

First, it is important that the two enterprises are very different but not unequal. I do not feel the need to get into a long debate about the importance of each responsibility, but if we remember that feminism is not about turning the tables against men, but leveling the playing field, then we do not want to say one is more important to the other. My own personal skiddishness comes from the idea that one's "children" is understood in more than just a biological sense, but also a relational sense. We can see this trend in stepparents who call their partner's kids from other situations their own.

Ren later backed down from this point pretty readily. But it gave me pause, and I think it helps us remember that feminism is about eqaulity not a different type of inequality. As the saying goes, every man should be a feminist. I would add, "and everyone should be for equality." 

Feminists Love Divorce? Schlafly and Venker

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beverly-willett/feminists-love-divorce_b_825208.html

The Conservative Grand Dame and the "No-Bull Mom" have teamed up to write a new book. The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - And Men Can't Say. As part of the publicity of the book, Beverly Willett, in conjunction with Huffington Post, interviewed the two co-authors about the ills of modern feminism and the reasons it is hurting modern America.

When asked why many marriages, not just of feminists, fail, Schlafly responded that marriage and motherhood are not taught as aspirations anymore."The result is women don't think of marriage and motherhood as fulfilling in and of itself. It's silly to think there's something wrong with being in the kitchen--everybody has to eat!" Schlafly said. She went on to say that the feminist movement has not reaped "a single benefit" for women" and that, "Feminists demeaned marriage and motherhood even though most women want marriage and motherhood." When asked to respond to quotes like "You can't legislate morality" in terms of divorce reform, Schlafly responded, "That's ridiculous. We have adopted thousands of federal and state laws to legislate morality. What do you think the criminal code is?" Venker also chimed in, claiming marriages are not viewed as lifelong commitments as they were in the past and that "feminism also taught women that men are idiots". 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Phyllis Schlafly is the reason I will never buy a Schlafly-brewed beer, even if it is a moniker of my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. It really pains me to see such ignorance from someone who has so much influence in the conservative media, though I guess I should not be surprised with the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly running around. I think it is necessary to make a few points clear to the Grand Dame. First of all, modern feminism does not downplay the significance of healthy marriage and raising children. The opposition two both is their place as near social REQUIREMENTS in society. Yes, there is nothing wrong with wanting to raise children, have a healthy, happy marriage, and live your life in that manner. There is ALSO nothing wrong with never wanting children, living independently as a single woman (or man), and disowning the social history of marriage. Of course everyone has to eat, Ms. Schlafly, but that does not mean women HAVE TO make all their food for their family, or have a family of their own. I grew up around conservatism, Ms. Schlafly, and I have seen first hand the problems it can cause. I am not hereby endorsing "liberalism" as the way out, but let us not forget that the feminists women has made HUGE strides for the equality of women and continues to defend the inalienable rights of all. Also, your legal moralism is not an uncommon stance, but it is not the stance of the United States government, nor has it ever been, and we cannot force people to stay in marriages they do not want to. As a child of divorced parents, I am OVERJOYED my parents got a divorce. They could hardly stand talking to each other in my household without yelling at the top of their lungs or remaining on separate floors for the entire time they were home together. There was no physical abuse, addiction, or extreme conflict other than the fact that they did not LOVE or even LIKE each other anymore. Should they have pushed through 6 more years of my brother, sister, and I going through high school, and "toughed it out"? By my estimations, Ms. Schlafly, they seem a lot happier now then they ever did during my late childhood and adolescent years. 


Ms. Venker, I do not think your criticism views the whole picture. Yes, I think you are right to say that marriages are not viewed with the undying certainty that they once were. I think there are many reasons for this other than a decline in moral values. If I may be so bold, can we not chalk this up to realism? You are right to point out the high divorce rates and even to call for divorce reform (although I believe your approach is extremely limiting and constrained), but it is wrong to accuse younger generations of not realizing the lifelong commitment marriage entails. We just understand that things change, people grow apart, and sometimes love is lost. It sucks, but at least we are facing it head on instead of acting like it never happened and are not encouraging our young women to stay in marriages they are dissatisfied with. As a philosopher currently studying topics of sexuality, and also legal issues like marriage, should we not question the universal nature of the legal contract of marriage? I think we should. It is the only contract that does not change its form for different circumstances, and that, I believe, is absurd. Furthermore, feminism did not teach women that all men are idiots, it taught them that all women are not subservient to men or meant to be their co-dependent, as the lovely Biblical creation story would show. 


I think we can chalk up a point for that pesky liberalism here. Those crazy feminists liberals seem more like realists and compassionate human beings than Ms. Schlafly and Ms. Venker. There is an understanding that women MAY want to become mothers and marry (and only, for the conservative right, if it is in the oppposite order that I listed), but that sort of social hierarchy is rooted in oppression, and while it may not be so today, it does no good to call for the  "glorious" values of the 1950s and much, much before, and not let women live socially acceptable lives free from marriage and motherhood. It is about choice, and, although that is a word the conservative right does not like to hear since they immediately chalk it up to abortion, that is a fact. 

Clarification

The blogs all posted on one or close conjoining days were posted in quick succession because it was when I had time to post them. I wrote them all on MS Word at various times.

-BC

A Brief Reflection on Bro Culture

From my general experiences there are two types of bro culture: Negative and Positive

Negative Bro Culture:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1997489,00.html

The heavy-drinking, women-are-objects bro culture. It glorifies traditional masculinity and if you do not fit into that, you are a "pussy" (a term that already speaks volumes of the misogyny). The TIME article references a craze known as "Icing", in which Bros force other Bros to down Smirnoff Ice, a drink often associated with femininity and not being able to handle the (excessive) heavy drinking of Bros. It is a de-masculinating "game", and further sets to prove that if you are not a Bro you are a "pussy". Clearly nothing good can come from this sort of Bro Culture. The community created is one where you can never let your guard down and always have to be hypermasculine, hypersexual, hyperintoxicated, and flat out stupid.

Positive Bro Culture:

If negative bro culture got anything right, it was the sense of community. Bros always defend other Bros, no matter what. There has been an offshoot of the negative bro culture that focuses on the tight-knit community aspect of relationships and not the hypermasculine features. Bros (which, in this culture, can be both female and male) are there for support on all issues and provide a good social group to spend time with and develop relationships. Certain things, like sports, videogames, and rock music, are heavily tied to all Bro Culture, but in Positive Bro Culture, they do not serve as hyper-competitive devices, but are used for social interaction. Phrases like "Bros for Life" emphasizes this, and a strong support group is valuable to any human flourishing.

If we can reshape the public's image of bro towards the positive image, the negative bro image will diminish. Heavy partying and misogyny are only consistent with frat-boy negative bro culture, and no thinking person should support this. It breeds violence and hatred of women, and those things are not conducive to a productive society.

Sometimes these two groups are conflated. We have the positive bros getting mixed in with the negative bros, and finding the tight-knit community worth the excessive partying. This is why we must draw the line. We must encourage tight-knit communities that do not engage in excessive alcohol consumption and misogyny. If we let our young people become engulfed in negative bro culture (as often happens), we have to fight a much harder battle. Stopping negative bro culture at its source, impressionable male youth, will go a long way in fighting misogyny. 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julia Sweeney: The Women of the New Atheism Movement

The New Atheist Movement is often accused of being entirely older Caucasian men and lacking any real diversity. (This is often based on looking only at prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, etc.) However, this criticism has come up lacking with the efforts of two prominent women in the movement: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Julia Sweeney

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia into a Muslim family. Her father opposed the practice of genital mutilation, but while he was away her devout grandmother had the "procedure" enacted on her. In her early schooling, she was introduced to a religion teacher that encouraged her all-girls school to adopt a more steadfast version of Islam. Ali practiced this for a while, but became aware of the male-dominated society she lived in. When she was forced to marry her distance cousin who, as she put it, "made her body go cold", she fled to Holland where she able to gain political asylum. Working her way from the ground up, she went to school and became educated, eventually leaving her Islamic faith behind for Atheism. She served in the Dutch Parliament and now runs her foundation, the AHA Foundation, which protects those who are critical of Islam and promotes the open exchange of ideas. She has been an activist against the practices of genital mutilation and women's oppression in fundamentalist Islamic countries and around the world.

Julia Sweeney is a comedian who is famous for her series Letting Go of God, in which she takes any compliant listener through the journey of her evolution from faith to lack-thereof. She brings a lighter side to the often philosophy/science driven discussion of belief and presents her life story in a fun, comedic way. She has been apart of large Atheist meet-ups, including those with the famous Four Horsemen of Atheism (Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris) and has made huge strides in appealing to reason and emotion in atheism.

While I think it is important to recognize these two women for their work in the often male-dominated New Atheist Movement, it is just as disheartening that they have to be recognized as the Women of the New Atheist Movement. It truly shows how male-dominant our culture is, even in academia or intellectual discussion. Both Ayaan and Julia have made fantastic contributions to the New Atheist Movement, and as a huge fan of both their work, I hope it levels the playing field so I do not feel compelled to talk about the 2 Women of Atheism and make the gender-divide apparent. It is sad that they are truly different in the New Atheism Movement because they are women, and hopefully the community will embrace more women and become a truly equal movement. 

Dolce and Gabbana; Edgy or Exploitative?

http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/dg-queers-advertising-yet-again/
(please refer to the link for two video ads by D&G)

Is this ad a double edged sword?

Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), as well as the majority of the high fashion world, prides itself on its edgy appeal. Here we have an ad with what appears to be one (or four men, I cannot honestly tell) man in a lavishly designed suit kissing the hand of himself (or another man). We could interpret this ad as not explicitly homosexual for two reasons:
1. The man is kissing his own hand.
2. Kissing a hand is a sign of respect, regardless of sex.

However, if we do interpret the ad to have some homoerotic ideas, or at least the allusion of homosexuality, I am at once joyous and offended. On the surface, it would seem a good thing that D&G is not ignoring the existence of homosexuality and, in fact, bringing it to the forefront of the conversation. At the same time, we must wonder if they are exploiting homosexuals and homosexuality by being unaware of their stature and the view of the general public.

Maybe it is just because I grew up in the Midwest, but Dolce & Gabbana is considered a luxury that need not be had or, more harshly, as a "queer-loving fashion faux pas of an organization" (direct quote from a family member). In any case, it is considered too edgy for its own good. When it is paired with homosexuality, it makes homosexuality seem too edgy for its own good and further deepens the oft-accepted practice of bigotry against homosexuals.

Now I must concede a few points: this ad probably did not run in the Midwest. However, the Super Bowl ad on the provided link ran everywhere. I can understand it as a slap-in-the-face to bigotry by D&G, and while that is commendable, the bite back of the conservative right affects people's lives. We only need to look at the  Prop 8 vote in California for a pertinent example, wherein the right to marriage was taken away from same sex couples. We only need to look at the majority of America, whose states deny that right in an overwhelming majority. My worry is that the D&G ads push homosexuality further to the edge. While I like to see the LGBT being represented in ads, this ad is only self-serving (I guess as most ads are) and not socially conscience. 

Why Nuns are better than Priests (or at least this nun)

After reporting the story of a St. Louis-area Bishop who disparaged atheists at my alma mater, I was offered the opportunity to speak at the Ethical Society of St. Louis. Since it was a big opportunity for me, I immediately created a Facebook event and invited all of my friends, as any tech-savvy kid would do these days. In my excited state, I may have forgotten that I have quite a few bigoted friends from my Catholic high school days who hate atheism and atheists. So the epic debate ensued, via Facebook, and one part in particular struck a chord.

Among those virtually protesting my event were 3 boys preparing for religious life. One is a current Seminarian, another is studying to become a Jesuit, and the third is discerning his "call" to the priesthood. All three of them were rather quick to show the love of Jesus by bashing myself and my message. If they had read the description on the event page, they would have found that I have no plans to bash their religion (Catholicism in all cases), but to open the door for interfaith dialogue between the religious and the non-religious. In their haste, they made insensitive and inaccurate comments and have (for the most part) ceased their arguments.

Amidst all this disorder and chaos, another person interested in the religious life stepped forward and offered the message of compassion that Jesus of Nazareth brought. She called for an open exchange of ideas and to show a loving attitude towards all. In the truest sense, she brought wisdom and acceptance to her fellow religious life friends and admitted she planned to attend the event to find just the same things she brought to the wall post.

Now it is obviously an overstatement to say nuns are better than priests. But this (future) nun sure showed more understanding then her male counterparts. Maybe the Catholic Church should remember that the most revered among them do not always have to be men.

Women's Rights Defunded by House

On Friday, the House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood as an amendment to the Healthcare Reform Legislation. The issue has generally been stated by conservatives to be about the taxpayers funding abortion clinics. Conservative pundits and representatives have come out against this sort of funding, claiming the American taxpayer should not have to pay for abortion as it is not primary healthcare and is wholly against their moral or ethical beliefs.

I would be more sympathetic to these pundits if the allegations covered the issue entirely The debate as to whether abortion clinics should be funded by the federal government is a worthwhile debate to have. I believe that not funding organizations like Planned Parenthood, which supports abortion rights, unfairly discriminates against underprivileged classes in fulfilling their right to reproductive choice. It is apparent that there could be a debate about this, but cutting funding to Planned Parenthood is more devastating than this.

Planned Parenthood provides all sorts of sexual health care at little to no cost to underprivileged women, including pap smears, sexual education, and birth control. In some cases, they also provide general OB/GYN services to women regardless of financial stability. This amendment to the Healthcare Reform legislation denies women their right to seek healthcare regardless of financial status, and I think it is highly illegal under the new legislation and against common sense. Everyone should be entitled to healthcare regardless of social status; it is an inalienable a right as any other.

So the conservative agenda needs to realize that it is not fighting against abortion. It is denying women their right to healthcare. They have conflated a very important issue and have managed to get it passed to the Senate. Let us hope that President Obama and the Senate stop this in its tracks.

Tough Guise: HxC bands

The picture above is a band called Skylit Drive, a 6 piece hardcore (HxC) band from Lodi, California. As you can see, those guys look tough. A new type of masculinity, even if it involves long hair and huge earrings. The hardcore music scene prides itself on being tough. It has...

Mosh Pits, where people often get injured...

Zero gauges and tattoos. and Let's not forget...

Blood, "power stances", vocals involving screams and "pig squeals" (gutterall throat sounds).
The whole guise is tough. Sometimes even, the guys are physically tough. I used to play in a hardcore band wherein I would get physically beat up in mosh pits. I must admit I sort of enjoyed it, but not in a masochistic way. I enjoyed sports all my life, and moshing was just like getting hit in football or checked in lacrosse. It meant you were playing hard and having a good time. But I think the difference in the hardcore movement (for the most part) and other tough guises is that most HxC people truly care.

Take A Skylit Drive. Mike "Jag" Jagmin, the lead singer, is a vegetarian and strong political activist. He has worked extensively with peta2, and often defends his vocal style (a high-pitched range spanning three octaves) against those who want him to be more "masculine". Many hardcore bands are also "Christian" bands that preach love and peace, like The Devil Wears Prada. Their guitarist also works with PETA. Maybe this is just a function of the post-hardcore movement and our new, progressive understanding of the world, but let us not forget that under the tough guise we have some truly tough guys; tough on injustice. There are still those just looking to pick a fight, in fact, sometimes the music itself suggest that, which cannot be endorsed. But the positives are also very prevalent in bands like A Skylit Drive and The Devil Wears Prada.

The Anti-Abortion Moniker rolls on...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-southdakota-abortion-idUSTRE71E67N20110215



So the proposed bill up for debate in South Dakota would include "defending the life of an unborn child" as justifiable homicide in the state. Opponents are strongly against the bill, as they believe it paves the way for "justified" killing of abortion doctors and clinic workers. Defendants say they are protecting pregnant women from attacks against the fetus in their womb.

From what I have seen of the proposed legislation, the law would allow a woman or anyone intimately tied to that woman to murder the abortion doctor if he was to advocate for or be prepared to give an abortion. Now, I cannot think of many instances where a woman would want to kill the abortion doctor they sought out for their abortion. But the amount of emotional trauma that comes with an event like that is not any place to be allowing "justified" killing. This also opens the door for family members (or a "mistress, master, or servant") to "defend" the woman by killing the abortion doctor.

First of all, we should not be legally stigmatizing abortion. A willing woman and her partner who want to have an abortion are legally allowed to do so (Roe v. Wade decision) and no law should prevent that. While I am certainly an advocate of womens' rights, I am not advocating that we give the right of murder to anyone. This law would put abortion doctors at an increasingly high risk of attack (the ACLU is already on it) and we do not want another Dr. Tiller incident. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller) Religious nutjobs will do what they want, but we should not be making that legal. Yes, the law prospectively would defend a pregnant woman for killing anyone who tried to kill her fetus. I could support that, but you have to word laws very specifically so no one can justify killing abortion doctors for their practice.

Whether you are for abortion or not, this is no way to go about stigmatizing the practice. Killing the abortion doctor just adds to the cycle of violence and hurts the family of that physician irreparably. 

Arianna Huffington on Sleep

http://www.ted.com/talks/arianna_huffington_how_to_succeed_get_more_sleep.html



As witty as ever, Huffington argues for "a new feminist" ideal: "We are literally going to sleep our way to the top!" At the TEDWomen event last year, Huffington told the audience of her episode of fainting from exhaustion two and a half years ago that landed her in the hospital. She advocates abundant sleep in hopes of leading a more productive, fulfilling life. She cracks a Lehman Brothers "and Sisters" joke, amidst explaining that sleep deprivation has become a sort of "one-up" game, wherein people brag about how little sleep they get.

She calls on women to lead the way in sleep, and to thus take the world by storm by being more productive, forward-thinking and big picture individuals who live happier persona lives. Certainly, Huffington is addressing the need of our over-worked businessmen and women to remember the need to sleep. We can see it here on a college campus, where 8 hours of sleep a night is unheard of. I have had many friends brag about their insomnia and other sleep health problems. In particular, Arianna is referring to "Type-A" women, like herself, who overwork themselves to compete in leadership roles against the overly-advantaged men. She says that sleep is the key to live better and be more sucessful.

The only problem I have with Arianna's speech is that it ignores men, but I suppose we can forgive her for that, speaking at TED Women. She does, however, play into the "one-up" game by encouraging women to surpass their male counterparts. On a personal level, this is fine, but as we mentioned today, we are looking for equality not a reverse hierarchy.

Neil Patrick Harris: The Womanizer (Wait, He's Gay?)

 

Mr. Neil Patrick Harris plays Barney Stinson, an infamous womanizer, on the hit TV Show, How I Met Your Mother. If you knew nothing of Neil Patrick Harris watching the show, you would think that his character is the epitome of the "bro" culture, which views women as objects to have sex with. Indeed, Mr. Stinson is far more complex than that (as I hope to show in my TV analysis), but the idea of a gay man was a womanizer on a hit TV show makes me ponder.

First of all, the first question I have is "Does this play into the hypersexualization of gay men and women?". My tepid answer to that is no. Indeed, Barney is a womanizer on the show and has numerous affairs with many women (although the nature of those affairs are often ambiguous). Indeed, Barney talks more about sex than actually pursuing it, and is a type-character to show the faults in "bro" culture, loosely defined as the culture of men who take brotherhood to the extent of defending their "bros" to unlimited ranks and demeaning the female population. Since you have no idea from the show that Neil is gay, it does not affect the hypersexualization of LGBT people.

Second, "Does Barney as a 'character' have a positive effect on the audience?" I would say yes, for those who actually watch the show. He's humorous, he's a satirist. If you don't take him seriously, he's purely comic. The only negative impact is those using the character as a defense of "bro" culture, although that is just showing their ignorance of the actual character.

Neil has consistently been a model for the improving view of gay men and women in society. He is in a long-term, committed relationship with his partner, and has just had surrogate twins, which is phenomenal for the new family. In fact, with the character of Barney, Neil is making himself loved by all, and allowing the conversation to start for the equality of all people.

Huzzah, NPH!

Queer Conscious MTV?

This particular cultural commentary requires a bit of a back story.

I went to high school in the conservative Midwest at an all boys Jesuit high school. The school, being both Catholic and all-boys, had some serious issues with homophobia and discrimination against LGBT people. You could not walk down the halls without hearing some sort of blatant or implicit harassment of the few openly gay men or slang/slur uses of the terms "queer", "gay", and "fag". As the head of the Young Democrats and a vocal support of LGBT rights, I decided to take action. My junior year, I organized together with some friends a small Day of Silence. It was not advertised, and the result shocked the community, making the paper. The next year, the event included 50+ students and raised awareness throughout the Catholic community. My Spanish teacher, whose daughter worked at MTV, was impressed (despite her political conservatism) and told her daughter to contact me about it because MTV has been working on creating a new character for a show that as-accurately-as-possible portrays the struggles of a gay teenager in high school. So next month I will be working with MTV on development and such things to progress their understanding of the LGBT experience in high school.

What I have found most interesting about this whole thing is the fact that the lovely TV network that brings us such high-class shows as Jersey Shore and Teen Mom are interested in making a character who is gay that accurately portrays the struggles of "out" gay teens in high school. The person I work most closely with is concerned that Kurt (Glee) and other gay characters do not accurately portray the widespread diversity of the LGBT community and wants to draw on the whole of the audience for viewership. With all the problems in media related to race, gender, and sexuality, it is finally nice to hear someone is trying to make a difference. I hope I can do a great job helping out with that!

SKYY Blue and the Hypersexualization of Gay Men

In one of the few ads I have ever seen depicting (insinuated) gay men, the SKYY Blue Vodka ad strikes me as incredibly stereotypical and not beneficial for the homosexual male population.

First of all the (limited) pros
1. The ad portrays relatively attractive men, which I guess in some sense could provide eye candy for the male homosexual or female heterosexual viewer.
2. The ad portrays a (probably) gay black man who is dark black. Dark black men are not often portrayed in other ads, so to see the added diversity is nice.
3. It is an ad that portrays gay men, which most companies shy away from.

The cons
1. All the men are looking at each others' sex organs. Can you say hypersexual gay male stereotype?
2. The ad insinuates that all gay men do is lay around and stare at each others' junk. Obviously not a productive portrayal.
3. I am familiar with the SKYY Vodka brand. Most people are. But how on earth are we supposed to know that those blue bottles are a malt beverage, not to mention at their availability is limited to foreign countries? I was worried that these guys were drinking bottles of vodka at first, which is never a good idea.

Every ad of gay people I have seen portrays them in a hypersexualized way. I think advertisers need to embrace the diversity of LGBT culture and understand that gays and lesbians are no more sexually active than  heterosexuals. 

Maxim Ralph Lauren Ad

I recently brought in an old issue of Maxim Magazine (with Anna Kournikova cover) provided by my dormmate to show a particular Ralph Lauren ad and how it dealt with the issue of race.

The ad is an insert ad that markets new Ralph Lauren fragrances called The Big Pony Collection. The ad shows 4 Males (3 white, one black) engaging in the sport and luxurious social life surrounding the game of polo. There are a variety of women in the ad, who function primarily as the boys' significant others. The particularly interesting feature of the ad are the black couple, Nathan and Naja.

Nathan and Naja are portrayed as fully immersed in the predominantly white culture of polo. Indeed, they function as basically a white heterosexual couple and act and look as if they are stereotypically white. all our equals in this Of course, there are no interracial couples (3 white couples and 1 black couple), but there is nothing other than skin color to separate them. They are all the same people despite diferent heritages and are all part of this luxurious polo lifestyle.

The ad de-Africanizes Nathan and Naja (both are light skinned and deal solely with Caucasian brethren). The ad is a prime example of how even when different races other than Caucasian are incorporated into ads, they are often made to act as typical white men and women. For once, I would like to see an ad celebrate diversity in a way that actually focuses on the diversity and not the commonalities. While it is important to realize we are all human, we are not all the same humans and that is vital to our world.

The Vagina Game

A fascinating if repulsive occurrence happened today in the living room of my dorm. In our 5-way testosterone-filled dorm, we often say things without thinking that out of context could be taken as offensive. Usually I will simply call myself or others on these things, but today's occurrence was different.

As one of my roommates walked to the bathroom from his room, my dormmate utterred "vagina" to which the roommate responded "pussy". The comments were not meant in the usual, slang calloused way of insulting the other, but were used as some sort of ice-breaker between the two. However, as both participants usually would have just continued on, this was different. The two then proceeded to come up with a long list, with the help of our neighbor upstairs, of various titles for the vagina. The purpose of this exercise was for humor and to pass the time, but the content was utterly offensive.

The organ was referred to as "penalty box", "baby factory", "leech", "second mouth", and "scissor". Each term had its own connotation, which was either understood or explained to the participating parties. For example, "second mouth" was understood (as well as being extremely offensive) and "penalty box" was explained in detail as meaning the place where you commit you go to commit an offense, in this case, reproduction or brutalized sex. 

I had two major reactions to this incident. The first was that this sort of vulgar talk of the female sexual organ has no place in the realm of good humor, and it is not appropriate and should be condemned in social conversation. It is utterly disrespectful to women, and all but shows a man's true colors when it comes to his view of sexuality. It perpetuates a cycle of violence-based sex against women and demeans them to nothing more than tools for pleasure. 

The second was where to draw the line between joking and not. I knew my dormmates did not mean any of seriously. I knew if I confronted them in a serious manner they would just say they were "joking around". But the line needs to be drawn. The courage needs to be there to point out that these sort of "humorous" games are demeaning and need to be stopped. People need to stick their necks out in social settings to discourage misogyny, whether direct or indirect. I have voiced my concerns in the dorm and hopefully they will be heard. 

Respect comes first.

A Brief Reflection on Sex and Misogyny

I am currently enrolled in PH 256: The Philosophy of Sex and we are in continued talks about what can be considered acceptable sexual activity. Thomas Mappes wrote a piece entitled "Sexual Morality and the Concept of Using Another Person", in which he argued for a type of sexual libertarianism that made the primary stipulation for "moral" sexual activity informed, free consent. Robin West wrote a critique of Thomas Mappes article, "The Harms of Consensual Sex", stipulating that consensual sex harmed women in many ways.

At first, I was very open to be in agreement with Ms. West. She was trying to make an argument that Mappes' sexual libertarianism was not as willy-nilly, free love, and full-proof as it seemed. However, every one of her arguments severely debased women or ignored the idea of free, informed consent. She started by arguing that a woman in an abusive relationship might consent to having sex with her abusive partner to avoid his wrath later, or for various other reasons. First, I think it should be noted that these examples are not free consent. The abused in that instance is being coerced by the implicit threat of violence or by the bleak outlook of poverty. In other words, by saying no there are grave and serious consequences. Second, I think it should be noted the image of women that is being given here. It starts with an abused woman in a relationship so powerless she cannot do anything for herself and has no will to attempt to work her way out of the situation. While I would be foolish to not acknowledge that situations like these do arise and arise with quite too great a frequency, it is extremely harmful to women to paint them not as victims of abuse, but as powerless and having weak wills.

West then turns her critique to the overly curious teenager. She says that certain female teenagers will consent to sex out of curiosity, or to not hurt their partner's ego. In both cases, she says it is not beneficial sex or "moral sex". In the first case, if the curiosity entails that either partner doesn't know what they are getting into, it is not informed consent. On the second one, we once again have the image of the weak-willed woman, which seems to be a theme of West. This portrait of women plays into the vicious cycle of misogyny and should not be tolerated, especially in philosophical circles which pride themselves on logic and understanding.

As a philosopher, I think critiques like West's should receive critiques of their own and that we should not allow such gross misrepresentation of women. Philosophers of sex should continue to strive for equality in the sexual relationship and should always remember that equality outside of it comes first. Misogyny and any bigotry should not be tolerated.

Sky Sports fires Andy Gray and Richard Keys for Sexist Remarks

Recently in England, heralded Sky Sports soccer announcers Andy Gray and Richard Keys were sacked for making sexist remarks, directed at FA Association referee Siam Massey. (See video above) The two were recorded off-air saying, in effect, that the world had gone mad to allow a female referee into the game and that Ms. Massey did not know the offsides rule, which stipulates a player cannot be ahead of the last defender for the opposing team or, if no opponents are behind the ball, past the ball.

There has been a lot of debate raging about whether Gray and Keys should have been fired. Some argue that Gray, 55, and Keys, 53, have been long-time announcers and that the presences of a referee who was a woman was a new thing to them and their comments, though inexcusably offensive, have been apologized for and should be forgiven. Some have argued that Gray was actually a victim of sexism himself in this situation.

All in all, I must say I support the firing of both announcers. While I do sympathize with older generations being overcome by changes in the new, advancing worlds, such remarks are inexcusable and blatantly demeaning to women. As a huge fan of Gray and his longtime colleague Martin Tyler's announcing, I was appalled to hear such sexist remarks coming from his mouth. There is absolutely no truth to his comments (of course a woman is just as capable of understanding the offside rule as a man!) and thus his termination from Sky Sports is a warranted consequence. The situation reminds me of another situation in England where two civil partners, both men, were denied a 1-bed room in a hotel because the Christian proprietors were not comfortable with the idea of two gay men sharing a bed. Just like that was overturned in the courts and the hotel proprietors were rightfully punished, so too should Mr. Gray and Mr. Keys be punished. They have tarnished the footballing world and worsened the view of men's soccer being sexist.