Search

Happy. Healthy. Heathen.

Traveling, training, thinking, talking, typing

My FYLSX experience

Oh my goodness, I’m glad to write this post!
I’ve had it in my head for weeks, but I didn’t want to cast bad juju* on my results by even writing a draft of it.

I won’t redo the whole post explaining what this test is, it’s all right here.  And then I debriefed the experience here.

So here’s how the CalBar (hipster law-student speak again, for the California Bar) rolls.  The test was June 26.  These tests are hand-graded, of course, because of the nature of the essays, so the date the results are released is reasonable at August 10.  But this is where they lose me.  Instead of posting the results online, where the 800 students could log in and see immediately if they have passed, they instead snailmail the results letters from California on Friday the 10th.  Then, you can call on Monday the 13th if you haven’t gotten your letter (which most of us, especially the eastern half, won’t have), give your name, ssn, dob and hold your breath.

I was at daughter Amy’s house in Johnson City, with her guy and my guy, skyping with my study buddy and made my call.  Even after getting my YES, I checked the CalBar site over and over for the “Requirement Satisfied” status.  The statistics are not yet available for the June test; the most recent results are for the Oct 2011 test, which had an overall pass rate of 19.1%.  If you heard a scream or a shout around noon last Monday, it was moi.

Post-results day on the Nolichucky with my sweeties #letthedrunkchickguidetheraft

At this part of the post, if you are not a fellow law student, I don’t hold you accountable for not continuing to read.  It will be dull and irrelevant, and you are welcome to go have some strawberries and blackberries in cream.  Wait, that’s me.  Go have a snack of your own design, and I’ll meet you back at the blog when I’m ranting about religion or republicans or something.

I’d love to be able to give the top 3 Reasons I Passed.  Or some wisdom about how to budget your time, or write your essays, or practice your MCQ’s.  The best I can do is tell you what I did, and what worked for me.  And what didn’t.

  • Beginning in mid-January, I reworked my 2L schedule to be able to suspend my study for one month before the test and resume study in July without being behind.
  • Also beginning in January, I began the Concord First Program our school provided for us that consisted of an intense study program of the test subjects.
  • For 5 months, I dual-studied 1L and 2L (with 2L at a compressed rate).
  • I took my work schedule to half-time in March – I have the world’s best clients.
  • On June 1, I took the month off work, suspended 2L, and began studying 1L subjects 8-10 hours a day.
  • I chose to discard the external, checklist-based tutoring program I had used occasionally in 1L.  I feel strongly about this one, and I think I had to overcome this mentality to make the progress I made.
  • I wrote every essay and took every multiple-choice quiz in Concord First.
  • I accessed additional essays and MCQ’s and practiced those several times.
  • I listened to Professor Bracchi analyze all 4 essays for every FYLSE back to 2004.  If I had to pick one thing that was the most important, it would be this one.
  • I had the best study buddy on the planet.

There you go.  I know that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat – this is what worked for me.  However, not once after the test was I confident I had passed.  The area I thought I had done well in, the essays, were weaker grades than I expected, and the multiple choice, which could have been in Sanskrit for all I understood them, actually were what allowed me to pass.  I don’t know what the significance is of that lack of confidence, but until I heard the magic words, I didn’t think I had gotten it done.

Now it’s back to 2L, because those finals are around the corner in December.  Can’t close until I repeat, yet again, how much I love this school and the study of law.

Thanks for reading!

*you know I’m kidding about the bad juju, right??  What kind of rationalist do you take me for?

My take on the Chick-fil-A-holes.

AAAANNNNNNDDD I knew I couldn’t do it.  NOT comment on the Chick-fil-A thing.  Fail.  Oh well, I’ll try to be brief.

I am not boycotting Chick-Fil-A over the bigotry.  I’m not big on fast food in the first place, and that chicken sandwich is a little meh.  I’m a small business owner myself, and while it sounds cliche, I really try to make an effort to support small business.  In my small town here in the south, statistically, I’d be willing to venture that most of the CEO’s/owners/managers of these businesses share Dan Cathy’s worldview.  If I were to boycott every business I patronized in Middle Tennessee based on whether or not the staff opposed gay marriage, I’d be one frustrated consumer.  No, I’m not blogging about boycotting this chicken store.

There have been many bloggers and reporters who have covered the false First Amendment angle, so I won’t address that.  When Dan Cathy goes to jail, or is fined, or restricted from speaking about his bigoted position, I’ll write that blog.

So what’s my problem?

The thing that has bothered me more than anything else through all of this, the thing that has made me the saddest and most angry, has been the glee with which the Chick-Fil-A supporters have embraced this issue.

Let’s say you’re a believer.  Let’s say you have found some way to overcome all the contradictions, all the genocide, all the immorality, all the ignorance, all the misogyny, and you really truly believe the bible to be the true and only source for guidance in how you live your life.

How, with an iota of compassion in your soul, can you celebrate this as a victory?  How can you look at the LBGT community, your friends and family, your neighbors, and gloat and celebrate this?  If you believe marriage is an exclusive right for one man and one woman only, does your heart not break for your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters?  Does it not bring you to tears to know that, according to your belief system, these people will never know the joy of the commitment of marriage, the profoundly exhilarating and humbling experience of parenting?  If you believe this, and you must see how painful this will be for this community, how can you post those Facebook statuses?

There are so many things that make me angry about religion, but this is one of the things that makes me the angriest.  Some of you are my friends.  I know you are not bad people.  But lifetime exposure to a book-based morality instead of a compassion-based morality has distorted your natural, beautiful, healthy drive to decrease suffering in the lives of your fellow humans, and to increase joy.

When I became a secular humanist, I promised myself that no matter how angry it made me, I would never cut myself off from dissent.  But when you take pleasure in another’s pain, that’s not dissent.  It’s disgusting.

Thanks for reading.

Ragbrai blog. Ragblog.

Oh my yes.  Over and over.

Ragbrai 2012 has just concluded, and once again, it was the best week of the year.  I have tried for several years to blog about this event in such a way that I can make others understand why it’s such a fabulous event.  It truly is one of those things whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The dogs of Ragbrai 2012

The Des Moines newspaper is the Register.  In 1973, a couple of reporter friends decided it might be fun to ride their bicycles across the state over a week’s time.  That first year there were about 114 riders who made the whole distance.  This year, in addition to the 10,000 registered riders, it is unofficially estimated that there are another 5,000 “bandits”, riders not chosen through the lottery in the 10,000 limit.

The route is always west to east, and it is always a different route, spreading those tourism dollars across the state.  And the dollars were flying.  Pork chops, pie, t-shirts, pie, temporary tattoos, pie, barbeque, pie, beer, and pie.

Aden ate 2 pieces of cherry pie at this stop
These anti-paleo cinnamon rolls were as good as they look!

Team Fly has been rolling since 1990, although we didn’t call ourselves that then.  Our first year the kiddies were in the carts behind the bikes, and sometime after I scan our old pictures, I’ll post some of those.  Now our team runs about 18-20 strong, and includes family, friends, and even a few folks we’ve picked up along the way!

Roger BMX Denesha
Aden and Ben Daddy

The centerpiece of the team has become the Airbus, so named because of its airplane parts and aviation theme.  This is an old pic, but it does it more justice because in this one it has a new shiny paint job.  Big Jesse adds improvements every year – it has warm showers for up to 20, party deck, bunks, both first class and coach seating, overhead storage compartments, even 2 jump seats with 5-point harness.

Team Fly Bus

This year was a particular toasty ride for the first 4 days.  Temperatures in the 100’s became 112 out on the road in the sun.  However, in a highlight of the ride, the rain dance of the members of Team Fly brought magnificent thunderstorms and cooler temperatures for the final three days.  Unbeknownst to my teammates, I was also dancing for tail winds, and as it turns out, I have supernatural powers because indeed, the following day we had tailwinds for 85 miles!

Remember that time in Marshalltown?
more rain dance party
adding some hoop to the rain dance party

So after the 20 hour ride up, picking up the Colorado/Kansas group, 7 days and 480 miles of cycling, and the 20-hour ride back home, the bus is unpacked, hosed down, and parked til next year.  We’re all getting our nasty, sweaty clothes washed, our blisters, sunburns, and heat rashes are healing.

And we can’t wait til next year.

Jen at the Mississippi

Find us on Facebook and start pedaling!

Thanks for reading!

 

 

 

 

 

 

TAM 10

The Amazing Meeting.

And it has been amazing!

This collection of skeptics, scientists, researchers, entertainers gathered in Las Vegas is equal parts information, education, socialization, and great big huge fun!  It has been made even more fun by the fact that my daughter Glenda has been able to come with me.  Daughter Amy got to come last year, and we had an equally delicious time.

What is skepticism?  By definition: doubt as to the truth of something.  TAM bills itself as:

The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) is an annual celebration of science, skepticism and critical thinking. People from all over the world come TAM each year to share learning, laughs and the skeptical perspective with their fellow skeptics and a host of distinguished guest speakers and panelists.

What falls under this skepticism umbrella?  ESP.  Sasquatch.  Religion.  Alternative medicine.  Anti-vax.  Any type of quackery that tries to bill itself as science.  Founded by James Randi, the JREF has been fighting psuedo-science for years.  The man himself was in attendance and available for chatting up during the entire conference.

I attended TAM 9 last year with daughter Amy, and this year daughter Glenda got to come with me.  We had a great time – the event is held in the South Point Casino, which is an experience in itself.  She busted out an impromptu hoop performance in the Del Mar bar and gave a mini-physics lesson about centripetal force, color spectrum theory, and LED light energy that will have this group of science geeks (a term of absolute endearment) smiling for years.

Some of the speeches are on Youtube, but more of the texts are.  This one is particularly compelling by Pamela Gay, as it addresses the hot button issue of harassment issues both within and without the movement.

I know this post is short; I spent a few extra days in Vegas having too much fun (just ask daughter Glenda), and cut short my time to unpack and repack for our family bicycle trip across Iowa, which will be my next post!  Bus rolls tomorrow (Friday) at 6!

So, to recap:  TAM 2012.  Fabulous.  Go next year.  I’ll buy you a drink at the DelMar!

Thanks for reading!

Sex at Dawn. The book, not the appointment.

“We have good news and bad news.  The good news is that the dismal version of human sexuality reflected in the standard narrative is mistaken.  Men have not evolved to be deceitful cads, nor have millions of years shaped women into lying, two-timing gold-diggers.  But the bad news is that the amoral agencies of evolution have created in us a species with a secret it just can’t keep.  Homo sapiens evolved to be shamelessly, undeniably, inescapably sexual.  Lusty libetines.  Rakes, rogues, and roués.  Tomcats and sex kittens.  Horndogs.  Bitches in heat.”

And if that paragraph doesn’t appeal to you, neither will this book, or the rest of this review.

The book is Sex at Dawn:  How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What it Means for Modern Relationships.  It’s written by researchers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.

Like so much else that I study and seek to understand, this topic sends me running to our evolutionary heritage.  This is, for me, the first step in gaining understanding, whether we are determining what we eat, how we live, why we act the way we do.  This phase of information-gathering is not the end, but rather the beginning of the process.  Our natural heritage is morality-neutral – nature cares not whether you eat/behave/live/die in this manner; it’s simply the manner in which our species have evolved to thrive.  Natural selection isn’t inherently good or bad.  But it is the framework upon which to study what behaviors have served us well in our survival through the millenia.  (And a side note, which won’t surprise anyone who knows me, we learn again how things got sideways in our prehistory with the advent of agriculture.)

And our species has thrived on, not to put too fine a point on it, sluttiness.  If you pause reading right here, you can probably answer the next question, WHY, without much help.  But this book offers a lot of fun in seeking the answer.

It has long been known that we share an ancestor with other apes, and that our closest relative is the chimpanzee.  What hasn’t been known until more recently is that we are as equidistant, evolutionarily, to the bonobo.  It is in observing these two societies, bonobos and chimpanzees, that we get a full picture of social behavior that runs a broader spectrum than initially understood in terms of how we as homo sapiens have evolved.  We have so many years of social/religious pressure adding to our history, it’s difficult to determine what is natural and what is cultural, and watching our not-so-influenced relatives give us insight into our own behavior.

What we have discovered is that while chimpanzees exhibit behavior that shows reproduction-based sexual activity, territoriality, exchange of female sexual favor for protection and food, bonobos behave quite differently.  Bonobo societies use sexual activity for conflict resolution, tribal bonding, celebration, and includes multiple partners/genders/acts.  Additionally, bonobos, like humans and unlike chimpanzees, have hidden ovulation, and therefore hidden paternity, which allows the entire tribe to take an interest in all the offspring of the group.

There are only a handful of books I have sent to all of my adult children, and this is one of them.  My kids are all progressive, open-minded, hippie-types, and as with all things, I love getting their feedback and observations, particularly when it concerns science, culture, and relationships.  They hold progressive ideas about marriage, monogamy, and relationships based on their own knowledge and experiences, and I look forward to having our family book discussion on this, fractured though it might be through time and distance!

The divorce rate in the US currently stands at about 50%.  If you were a car manufacturer, and you installed brakes on your cars that failed 50% of the time, you would consider this an absolute emergency.  If you were an investor, and you lost clients’ money 50% of the time, you should look for a new line of work.  If your restaurant food made people sick after one of every 2 visits, you’d be shut down in a big hurry.  There’s a problem with marriage in the United States, that doesn’t seem to be confined to any category:  age, religion, region, or race.   And because our religious and political entities have an interest in keeping the status quo, our citizenry finds itself, as it so often does, restricted from even asking questions and pushing back in the face of these dismal statistics.  The authors of the book don’t do a lot of moralizing – don’t go out and join a hippie commune, but perhaps share the book with your spouse and marriage counselor.  It’s a conversation we should be having.

“Could it be that the atomic isolation of the husband-wife nucleus with an orbiting child or two is in fact a culturally imposed aberration for our species – as ill-suited to our evolved tendencies as corsets, chastity belts, and suits of armor?  Dare we ask whether mothers, fathers, and children are all being shoe-horned into a family structure that suits none of us?  Might the contemporary pandemics of fracturing families, parental exhaustion, and confused, resentful children be predictable consequences of what is, in truth, a distorted and distorting family structure inappropriate for our species?”

Remember the documentary about the penguins?  Remember how we anthropomorphised that charming movie?  We aspired to be monogamous like the penguins, devoted to the nth degree to our offspring and to one another?  Churches showed this as worship service, in an effort to make us learn how very, very, ever so important it was to be like the penguin!  Calling them model parents, holding them up as an ideal example of monogamy, this film was lovely.  Touching.  And in its defense, that year spent with that egg on the ice was pretty accurately portrayed.  Those raging Antarctic blizzards don’t lend themselves much to extramarital temptation.  However….

“Once Junior is swimming with the other 11-month-olds – the penguin equivalent of kindergarten – fidelity is quickly forgotten, divorce is quick,  automatic, and painless, and Mom and Dad are back on the penguin prowl.  With a breeding adult typically living 30 years or more, these “model parents” have at least 2 dozen “families” in a lifetime.  Did someone say “ideal example of monogamy”?

You should read this book.  Every page reveals an interesting piece of the puzzle of human behavior.  Some of it is laugh-out-loud funny, and some of it is “who’s reading my email?” accurate.  I’ll throw in a couple of additional teasers: there’s a chapter on why a human penis is shaped like it is (try to guess first), and an entire chapter devoted to multiple female orgasm (as trippy as it sounds).  I have a copy I’m happy to loan, and there’s a Kindle version too.

After all that good stuff, let me issue one final caveat.  I HATEHATEHATED the final chapters.  After 300 pages of serious science data, cross-referenced sources, humor, light, the perfect balance of every word, the last chapter devolved into a Dear Abby column, and I have no idea why.  The authors have even added another chapter to the newest editions addressing all the complaints they received about that, but it was an unsatisfying explanation.  However, the totality of the book still rises about that imperfection.  This one’s a winner.  Read it, then tell me about reading it!

I envy you getting to read it for the first time.

Thanks for reading!

FYLSX recap.

OK, precious posse —

Here’s the scoop.
First, thank you for being so patient with me.  I know I’ve been an absolute bear, and it’s only because I surround myself with the world’s most wonderful friends that I’m able to survive this!

So…

Flew out to LA last Wednesday, and spent a day with the squeeze before reporting for duty at the Pasadena Hilton.  I picked up my girl Rosine at LAX (blog post about the world’s best study partner to come – I totally get credit for recognizing brilliance when I see it…) and headed to review weekend.

Best study buddy ever.

Because of my freaky-deaky online law school, as I have mentioned, all the studying is ON YOU.  Which, for some of us overachieving, Hermione, type A personalities, that is perfect.  We like moving at our own pace, we like figuring out what we have to know, and we truly love learning it.  I’m speaking for my fellow students, perhaps out of turn, but, along with the flexibility, is the reason we chose this school.

So what a spectacular moment when we all come together for the review weekend!  We’ve skyped one another, emailed, texted, called, IM’d, conference called, and class-chatted for a year and a half.  We’ve stalked one another’s Facebook, we’ve tried to put a 3 dimensional face to our friends, we’ve had virtual study groups, and finally, we get to meet for the first time REAL TIME, with real faces, and real voices, and real smiles (remember when Darth wanted to look at Luke with his own eyes?  Yeah, like that.)

The review weekend begins with a mock test that simulates the FYLSX (First Year Law Students Exam – have I mentioned that?).  The following 2 days are a review/debrief/dissection of the test, in a room with 80-100 of my closest law school friends.  I loved being in the room with all that academic energy, drive, and passion.  Our reviewing professor, Professor Steve Bracci, is the undisputed hero of the weekend, and if his earnestness could get us through, we would all pass with the proverbial flying colors.

We also got to meet most of our other professors, who have been completely available and absolutely helpful.  My brother attended a bricks-and-mortar law school (hipster-speak for plain old boring law school), and he did not have the complimentary things to say about his professors that I do about mine.  I’ve never waited more than 5 or 6 hours for an email response, and each time, the professors offer to also chat on the phone if we think we need extra help.  And no, all this sucking up does nothing for getting me to pass the test – CalBar is the complete and final say on that; our faculty have no input.

So test day rolls around, we report to the Pasadena Civic Center – all 800 of us – with our belonging in a clear, ziplock bag, earplugs, #2 pencils, and enough nervous energy to have powered the building for the entire 8 hours.  4 essays, 4 hours, and hour break for what would have been lunch if anyone could have eaten without puking, and then 100 multiple choice questions in 3 hours.  (Let me help you – 1.8 minutes per question).

And just like that, it was over.

“So, eleven hundred men went in the water; 316 men come out and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945.”

Ok, maybe it wasn’t quite that bad, but it was pretty brutal.  Results released by CalBar August 10, and I’m sure it’s an unintentional oversight on CalBar’s part that the last day for regular-cost registration for the retest is August 1.  Hmmmmm.

The $10,000 question?  I honestly do not know if I passed.  The essays were solid, and while the grade is combined, the MCQ’s were sketchy, and I don’t know if the essays can lift me up.  So retake is October, and another good time with my posse, another trip to Pasadena.

In the meantime, 2L rolls on (totally different subjects than the test subjects – an extra special bonus!)

Back to my life, my home, my friends, my work!  I’ve missed you all!  Thank you again for being so patient – don’t get into any legal trouble til I’m ready!  =)

Thanks for reading!

Most boring post. Ever.

This might be the most boring blog entry in the history of blog entries.  It’s just to serve as an explanation of where I have been, and where I’ll be for the next few weeks.

Underground.

When you attend a freaky-deaky online law school like I do, California insists you take what is known as the First Year Law Students’ Exam, affectionately known as the Baby Bar.  It’s a great idea – the premise is that if you can’t pass this bad boy, you really shouldn’t put a whole lot of time and effort into continuing (that’s what I’ve decided is the premise).  I have to fly to Pasadena the week before, attend a review weekend, and then the test is all day June 26:  4 one-hour essays, and 100 multiple choice questions.

Rose Bowl - the only Pasadena icon I know
Rose Bowl – the only Pasadena icon I know!

I am halfway through my 2nd year, but because the test is only offered in June and October, I am scheduled to take the test June 26.  So, you can do the math…since January, I’ve been studying 1L and 2L subjects.  #firstworldproblems

They way it works, you have 3 tries to pass this test, and an administration counts as a try.  In other words, even if you opt not to take one of the 3 consecutive administrations of the test for whatever reason, that counts as a try.  After the 3rd go, best wishes for your new career, which will not be the law.

I have this June, the following October, and June of 2013 to kill this mofo.  I’ve been studying like crazy, all while studying all the 2L subjects (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Real Property, Constitutional Law).  I’m crabby and sleep-deprived and full of self-doubt.  And I still have almost 6 weeks to go.

I should say that I really do love this school, I love the studying, the lectures, even the essays.  I’m going to see this through to the nth degree, 3 takings of this test and all.  I would really really really like to pass it on the first go, and I’m doing all I can to make that happen.

Which is why I’m writing this post.  It’s why I haven’t blogged in days and days.  It’s why I’ll be lying low for a bit.  And it’s why, if you see me around, I may be in a fog, I may be short and snippy, or I may not even see you if you wave!  Please be patient with me – – I’ll be back, I promise.

In the meantime, enjoy your May and June, and I will emerge on June 27th!

Thanks for reading!  (and for being patient!)

Kick-ass guest post

The following is a special guest post by Glenda Jordan.  It was written as a paper for her Spring 2012 Gender and Society class at UT, where she is a senior majoring in Art.

“You write sociology papers like a girl!”

One of the worst insults a man can receive is to be called a woman. If a man is caught doing any ‘female’ activity or exhibiting ‘feminine’ behavior, he is condemned to the highest degree.

This is such a reality that advertising companies will do everything in their power to make sure that their manly product is not just masculine, but outright insulting to the very idea of femininity in general. In no way can a man consume a product that’s made or marketed for women. Not only is this incredibly sexist towards women, but profoundly sexist against men as well.

This concept of gendered advertising reaches into every product imaginable, including but not limited to: food, hygiene products, cars, household products, tools, fitness plans, and beverages. Gender-biased advertising is pervasive in TV, print, and radio, and seriously affects society’s perception of gender.

Beverages and food seem particularly affected by gender messages. For instance, although diet soda has been around for quite a while, soft drink companies came up with a new version of a low calorie drink they could market towards men, because ‘diet’ is seen as a feminine word and concept. Society says it is much less acceptable for a woman to be overweight than a man, so ‘diet’ and ‘woman’ go hand in hand. Media, advertising, and society tells us women must have perfect bodies.

An example of two major companies that already produced a diet soda, but have made a new low-calorie drink that excludes the word ‘diet’ include Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper.

The original diet drink was straightforwardly named, with Diet Coke and Diet Dr. Pepper being the plain alternative to their sugary counterparts. Coca-Cola introduced Coke Zero in 2005. The design of the can featured black coloring and stocky, bold fonts in an attempt to make the can more masculine.

But perhaps the most audacious attempt at marketing a diet drink to men came in 2011 when Dr. Pepper introduced Dr. Pepper TEN. The can aesthetics featured a masculine gunmetal gray color scheme with rivets, a design strategy that evokes imagery reminiscent of weapons and power tools. The commercial advertising for the soda depicts an over-the-top jungle action faux-film sequence, with a muscular man claiming, “Hey ladies! Enjoying the film? Of course not! Because this is our movie! And Dr. Pepper TEN is our soda. It’s only ten manly calories, but with all 23 flavors of Dr. Pepper. It’s what guys want! ….So you can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks, we’re good. Dr. Pepper TEN – IT’S NOT FOR WOMEN!” This is actual commercial on real television. The company would tell offended audiences that it’s simply satire, and of course it’s a joke. However, how acceptable would this advertisement be if it implied that the drink was for Caucasians, and not African-Americans? Would they be able to get away with saying it’s simply a joke, that of course black people can drink Dr. Pepper TEN? In the backlash against the Dr. Pepper TEN commercial, women have been trying to contact the company for an answer to the sexist advertisement. The response is nearly as condescending and patronizing as the commercial itself, with customer relations response emails being ‘written by women’ saying that they aren’t offended by Dr. Pepper TEN commercial. To use the ‘well I’m the same minority and I’m not offended’ reasoning is incredibly myopic and derogatory.

Yogurt presents another gendered food phenomenon, with commercials for yogurt being specifically aimed towards women. Perhaps because the food itself is pastel and soft, therefore men couldn’t possibly consume it, that companies feel they couldn’t market it towards men. In one commercial for Yoplait, two women, who are a very politically correct duo of a black and white woman spending time together in a spa (implying that all women can enjoy yogurt, regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic status! How progressive!), talk about how their yogurt is so good, that the next greatest thing they could compare it to is shopping for chocolate covered high heels. Once again, this is an actual commercial. On real television.

Advertising also tells us that women are the only people who have digestive problems and need assistance with their bowel movements. Activia is a yogurt that claims to help with the body’s digestion, and once again only women are the consumers. After the Activia campaign was launched, more digestive-aiding yogurt was created like Fiber One, and Yo-plus (all of which are created by Yoplait). There is such a feminine stigma to yogurt in today’s society, that some men, even if they want to eat yogurt, will avoid buying it. I personally know of several men who have requested their girlfriends or wives to buy them Activia because they want some, but are just as embarrassed to buy it as they would be having to buy tampons for their partners. It is also significant to note that the only other major consumers of yogurt, according to advertising, are children. Trix yogurt and Gogurt are major brands and sit right beside all the lady yogurt. In fashion advertising and media, women are constantly being portrayed as childlike or juvenile.

Hygiene products are incredibly gendered. Some of them are understandably so, like conditioner meant for longer hair or soap meant to remove makeup. However, men cannot just be marketed soap. It cannot be flowery, girly, or gentle in any way. Men must have manly soap, and advertising companies are adamant to make sure that both men and women believe this. As with the infamous lady-yogurt, there is such a stigma attached to tools that women use to clean themselves that men couldn’t bear to wash in the same way that a woman would get clean (or that’s what AXE tells us.)

AXE came out with the Detailer Shower Tool. It’s basically the guy’s version of a scrub pouf or loofah. It’s just another way to lather up soap, and that’s a difficult task with just your hands. A shower pouf works very effectively, but that’s what girls use, so AXE solved that problem by created something that looks like a car part/spare tire. In the commercial for it, no less than eight supermodel women clean the man’s body with it in a industrial car assembly style setting. Judging by the design graphic and aesthetic layout of men’s hygiene products, men also abhor any and all color other than gray, navy blue, and black. I have often seen products use the advertising scheme of saying things like “it’s none of that girly stuff” or “this product isn’t for girls/women”.

The extreme absurdity of this type of advertising lies with the reality of the products themselves. It. Is. Soap. It’s not for power tools hardcore enough that someone of small stature or strength couldn’t safely use them, it is literally slimy goo that you rub on your body to clean yourself. To claim that any product is just too hardcore for women to go near it is a marketing ploy trying to convince men that what they’re using is not feminized in any way, and that their masculinity is safe. Remember, nothing is more insulting or degrading than for a man than to be called a woman.

Advertising, media, and society tell us that women are born with the ability to use household appliances. Although men are usually praised for their competence at life in general, commercials portray them in another way when is comes to domesticity. Obviously only women do housework, but that not only because they’re women. It’s because the house would collapse if a man even attempted it. Commercials portray husbands and fathers as blundering idiots that have no idea of how to cook, clean, or take care of children. Exasperated wives and mothers roll their eyes and smile sympathetically as they take over what is a simple and ‘traditional’ task for them.

Advertising tells us that men can barbecue like a pro, but once the cooking and preparing food for the family is inside the house, it’s a disaster. Jif’s peanut butter slogan is ‘Choosy Moms Choose Jif!’, and KIX cereal’s is, ‘Kid-Tested, Mother Approved!’. In a commercial for Combos cheese snacks, the real mother is replaced with a ‘Man Mom’, in which the father is playing the mother role. Because he has absolutely no idea of how to provide nutritious sustenance for his children, he feeds them solely on cheese pretzel snacks.

The portrayal of domestic life in these commercials are just as sexist towards men as they are to women. Men are incapable of housework and childrearing, while women fly through it with ease because it’s what they were born to do. Companies even create household appliances specifically for men so that if men must do a domestic chore, they at least don’t look like a woman using it.

In 2010 Philips introduced an clothing iron designed for men. Looking more like a power tool than the average clothing iron, Philips claimed it offered ‘more power, more steam, more performance’. Apparently Philips feels if a man has to submit himself to the infamously domestic female task of ironing clothes, the tool he uses at least needs to be better than what women use, as well as looking more rugged.

The irony about common household objects, tools, or products that already exist but then companies make ‘masculine’ versions, is that it negates the reason for creating the masculine object in the first place. Companies create male version of female products because men do not want to feel emasculated when using something. It is very important that the product avoids colors like pink and purple, and cannot look feminine, because it is degrading for men to look like women, because how are women described? Shallow, materialistic, and frivolous. The irony is that products like these prove that men are actually the ones that possess all the qualities they claim women have, because they will go out of their way to buy something simply based on its aesthetics rather than its performance.

It’s important to note that the blithering idiot men in the domestic commercials are what men are supposed to be like when they turn into husbands and fathers. Before they settle down into married life, however, they are portrayed as overly-muscular, attractive, and domineering men capable of attracting any woman they want (as long as she looks like a supermodel). However, the domesticated men still want to be the sex-fueled violent beast their instinct tells them to be.

During the 2010 Superbowl, Dodge released a commercial about the Charger that depicted men standing still with grim faces while an inner monologue narrates their feelings. Parts of this monologue include, “I will eat some fruit for breakfast. I will shave. I will clean the sink after I shave. I will say yes when you want me to say yes. I will be quiet when you don’t want to hear me say no. I will take your call. I will listen to your opinion about my friends. I will listen to your friends’ opinions of my friends. I will be civil to your mother. I will put the seat down. I will separate the recycling. I will carry your lip balm. I will watch your vampire TV shows with you. I will take my socks off before getting into bed. I will put my underwear in the basket. And because I do this – I will drive the car that I want to drive.” The actual tagline and title for this commercial is ‘Man’s Last Stand’. Not having this car is the proverbial line drawn in the sand of all the crap that a man has to put up with in domesticated, civilized, and most significantly – feminized life. This commercial implies that men (regardless of socio-economic status or ethnicity), all detest the same things such as maintaining their personal and household hygiene, remaining non-violent, attempting to be sensitive and attentive, and being in a domestic partnership with a female. It also implies that men are literally desperate to resort back to hairy, filthy, violent man-beasts with no concept of civility.

Commercials tell us that that’s what all men want deep down, to return to the neanderthal roots of violence and power. In this Dodge ad, there is a powerful message being said: men don’t want to do any of the things listed and they resent the fact that they must do so anyway. Who is forcing them to live like this? The implication is clear. Although I am sure society is implied to have a role in forcing men to be civilized, in this ad the gross perpetrator is woman, and all she represents. In the monologue, the female’s friends, as with her mother, are nearly unbearable, but the fast car makes it worthwhile. The statement about the lip balm is particularly representative of the idea that for men to be associated with anything feminine is a societal crime. Man cannot bear to hold the female’s lip balm, but will do it if he can drive the fast car he deserves. Women suffer from silly female problems like having chapped lips and cannot hold their own lip balm (their purses are probably too full of chocolate covered high heels, tampons, makeup, and yogurt to fit chapstick), so the man must do it for her. To him, it probably is the most degrading thing on the planet, but as the commercial states, if you have the car, it’ll all be tolerable.

In the same way that traditionalists would argue that women want to be housewives and child-bearing home makers, so all the ads and hype and media are just satisfying women’s desire to be the way they are meant to be, the advertisers for all the hyper-masculine media would argue that the absurd man-beast is indeed men’s natural state. There is this pervasive stereotyping idea that men just desperately desire to be as cave-men like as possible. They hate shaving, bathing, wearing clean and/or proper clothes, keeping house, putting up with women in any context that doesn’t involve having sex with them, eating anything other than meat, working, and pretty much being ‘civilized’ in any context. The misogyny present in advertising that tries to sell products to males is disgustingly overt.

In 2006, Burger King launched the ‘Manthem’ commercial, which depicts a man eating lunch with his girlfriend at a fancy restaurant. Disgusted with both the content and proportions of his meal, the man can’t take it anymore and gets up to burst into song. Some of the song lyrics include “I am man, hear me roar, in numbers too big to ignore, and I’m way too hungry to settle for chick food! [….] Oh, yes, I’m a guy! I’ll admit I’ve been fed quiche! Wave tofu bye-bye!” At one point during the ad, a man strips off his underwear, flips a minivan off of a bridge, and unfurls a banner that reads ‘EAT THIS MEAT’.

As with the yogurt advertisements, food plays a large role in the way gender differences are portrayed by advertising. Men are condemned for eating healthy food, and are pussy-whipped if their girlfriend made them. And small portions? Forget about it. But the worst, the most unforgivable crime of the man-food code is to eat vegetarian. Only weak, spineless men would consider not eating meat. I’ve been a vegetarian for eight years now, and I can tell you that people certainly feel it is incredibly wimpy and pathetic to consider not tearing into animal flesh. Caring about the welfare of lesser creatures makes you a coward and a pansy, and you deserve to be ridiculed for it! (or so Burger King says).

Commercials and advertising imply that you are not a real man if every meal you consume doesn’t consist of industrial quantities of meat and any other type of food that will cause early onset cardiac arrest and obesity. Another lyric in the song was “I will eat this meat until my innie turns into an outie!”. It seems that food advertising has polar opposition for gender: women must eat as little as possible or feel guilty for consuming anything with more than 5 calories, and men must be proud of the massive amounts of fatty foods they consume (or at least want to consume). Yogurt is again a perpetuator of this idea, with its commercials trying to convince women that they have to avoid any type of desert food, but it’s all alright because the magical Yoplait has come up with tiny cups of flavored dairy alternatives to their favorite and selfish splurges like cake, pie, and ice cream. It’s just like the real thing! Right?

So with all of these commercials, products, and advertising ploys, we’re still left with the reality that society endlessly and relentlessly tries to convince us that it is not ok to be female. When did this insult begin? With the dawn of patriarchy eons ago? It is reasonable to assume that as long as women were and are considered the weaker sex, it would be an insult to men to be compared to one. What are the qualities that society and media tell us women possess? They tell us that women are frivolous, vapid, shallow, self-centered, nagging, bitchy, unreasonable, materialistic, and child-like. Both advertising for women and men propagate this idea. Average, everyday jibes perpetuate the female-accusatory insult. How many times have you heard men say to each other, “You’ve been whining all day. Do you need a tampon” or “Are you on your period?”. I can recall several films, mainly action or military, when a strong male authority figure shouts at a group of men, “This isn’t girl scouts!”.

In the Sandlot, the local rag-tag baseball group is having an insult match with the uniformed official team. The final blow that causes everyone’s jaw to drop and for an epic revenge match to be declared is when the rag-rag team member who’s representing his side shouts, “You play ball like a girl!” This rhetoric states that it is so incredibly easy to be a woman, and that the tasks and activities that women participate in are so shallow and purposeless and simple that to be accused of being associated with anything of the like is horrifying and insulting to the nth degree.
How do we combat this disparity? I have personally made people stop and stare when, after they utter a female-accusatory insult, I look straight at them and say, “That’s offensive to my gender.” I find it catches people up a bit, it’s like they don’t quite know what to do with what I said. I feel that this reaction is due in part to the reality that nobody seems to be addressing this issue in all seriousness. The female-accusatory insult prevails, day in and day out, in every level of society. When I pointed the offensiveness out to my brother, I was pleasantly surprised when he simply said, “Yeah. Actually, you’re right.”

I feel that the first step to try and dispel this type of language is to just get people to acknowledge what they’re saying. I also think it’s incredibly important to point out the sexism towards men in media and advertising that perpetuates the female-accusatory insult. Of course men are capable of child-rearing and domestic tasks. The insult degrades the mere existence of women and condemns men of expressing anything not ‘masculine’. For instance, if during a scene in a military film, a soldier cannot perform a task due to physical or emotional strain, a savage general could yell, “Suck it up, soldier! This isn’t girl scouts!” and it would be commonplace and acceptable for him to say that. This would imply that men who struggle with any physically or emotionally draining task is weak and pathetic for suffering, and that it’s not acceptable to feel that way.

This is why this rhetoric is damaging for both genders, not just women. Even the extremely common expression, “man up!” or the command to “grow a pair!” promotes the same sexism. One must be as masculine as possible or grow a pair of testicles to accomplish difficult tasks. “Ballsy” is a word used to describe someone of considerable courage and daring, while “pussy” is used to describe a weakling. “Pussy” having the obvious double usage of being both a descriptive term for a sissy and a coward, as well as the slang for a woman’s genitalia.

In an episode of South Park, the boys (Cartman, Stan, Kyle, and Kenny) are horrified to learn the truth of the veal industry, and steal calves from the butcher so that they can keep them safe in their room. Stan is so convicted of his passion for animal rights that he becomes a vegetarian. As the episode progresses, he becomes very sick and lesions appear all over his body. At the end of the episode, his doctor diagnoses him with a condition where the lesions are actually tiny vaginas that appear all over his body.

With the way that women are portrayed be society, I would almost agree that yes, actually, it is that horrible to be a woman. But only because we are treated as such by advertising, men, society, and even  other women.

The point to keep in mind here, over all this discussion of these gendered ads and commercials, is to really see what the companies are selling, and the consequences of how they sell it. Soap. Shower poufs. Soda. Yogurt. Cars. All these are seemingly so important and critical to a functioning society, that advertising companies will jeopardize the healthy perception of gender in society because they feel it will make them wealthier. The companies seem to forget human decency and respect all together for the sake of the almighty dollar. If human beings feel that these commercials and the attitudes they perpetuate are harmful, then they must make a stand and voice their opinions against these companies and their advertisements.

When those attitudes extend beyond the commercials and advertisements into everyday life, when you hear people saying anything that suggests that being a female is inherently negative, it is vital that you voice your disapproval.

It should not be acceptable to have the accusation that a man is feminine be the most offensive insult he can endure.

It should not be acceptable that a man who is a husband or father is expected to have no competency when it comes to household work and childrearing.

These attitudes are ridiculous, infinitely absurd, and incredibly detrimental to both genders. So man up, grow a uterus, and fight like a human being: with passion, reason, and equality.

Thanks for reading.

Scopes 2.0

Gotta love Tennessee.

The Scopes trial was in 1925.  Almost 100 years later, we are still fighting to have evolution, among other science, taught in our public schools.

Last week, Tennessee HB 368/SB 893, the ‘Monkey Bill’ was made law.  This bill can be read in its entire 2 pages here.

Here’s the relevant paragraph:

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to,
biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human
cloning, can cause controversy;

The governor didn’t actually sign the bill, but acknowledged that it would become law anyway, even without his signature, which, of course, it did.

There was a rally today at the state capitol in support of public school science teachers, and to protest opening the door to any hint of teaching creationism in primary and secondary schools in Tennessee.  The bill contained language about this legislation not intending to endorse or represent any religion blahblahblah, but my question is:  For what secular reason does anyone object to evolution? There is no secular reason – this is a religious issue.

Evolution is not controversial.  All biological scientific study is based upon this foundation, and no reputable biological scientist rejects it.  The opposition to the teaching of evolution comes from Christianity, because it is in conflict with the version of creation in the old testament.  And there are those, like the folks who supported and voted for this bill, who feel that if you discount that literal version of events, you have to bring into question the entire book.

You won’t believe what I’m going to say next.  I understand and agree with that last statement.  The theory of evolution is in conflict with the Bible’s version.  They can’t both have happened.  Having been a Christian and active church-goer for 45 years, I understand the importance of the creation story.  All of the rest of the theology depends upon it.  No Adam, no fall, no fall, no sin, no sin, no need for redemption, no need for redemption, no Christ, no salvation, no nothing.

As I stood at today’s protest, surrounded by passionate, science-minded people, as I listened to a Vanderbilt professor, then Vanderbilt graduate student, then a Ravenwood High School science teacher, and I looked at the crowd, most of whom I know from the secular community in the Nashville area, a thought occurred to me.  Where are the moderate Christians?  You may claim that you, in your groovy, modern version of Christianity, embrace evolution, and global warming, and other sciences…that’s great, I guess, although I can’t imagine the mental gymnastics you are doing to get there, but why aren’t you here?  At this rally?  Protesting this backwards, destructive legislation?  If “those Christians” don’t represent you, where is your voice?  Of course the humanists are going to fight this, you know our pro-science position, but why aren’t you, progressive Christian?  Why aren’t you shouting in defense not only of Tennessee’s schoolchildren, but of your own faith?

This legislation opens the door.  We are disrespecting our children by allowing this.  We are forgoing our future by allowing this.  Do you know that Tennessee is ranked 49th in ACT scores?  Do you think this kind of anti-science approach may have something to do with this?  We should be appalled and embarrassed by this legislation.  No, we should be outraged.  We are putting our children and grandchildren at an incredible disadvantage in the national community.

I love this state.  I love the 4 gloriously different seasons, I love the southern charm, I love the rolling hills and the clean rivers and the pastoral countryside.  I want to fight for it, I want to be proud of my home.  But I am discouraged not only by this nasty bill, but by how few, and who, came out in protest today.  This matters.

The seculars will always fight it.  But until moderate Christians begin to police the fundamental fervor that is rampant in its ranks, change will be a long way off.  Speak up.  Grow a pair.  Or else throw in with them.  Shit or get off the pot.  Your own book uses harsh language about how a lukewarm believer should be treated, and for the second time in this post, I agree with the Bible.

Your children, your grandchildren, and every child in this state is counting on you.

Thanks for reading.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑