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.