Lows in Cosmetic Surgery

I thought women had reached the absolute nadir of cosmetic surgery with laser vaginoplasty (the procedure is pretty self-explanatory), but then the other day I saw a picture of a fifty-year-old woman and her twenty-eight-year-old daughter.  The mother had spent ten grand on cosmetic surgery to look identical to her daughter.  They go clubbing together, and apparently guys “compliment them all the time and mistake them for sisters.”

One of the reporters on TV said it was “creepy” that they would look so alike.  He was delusional.  They didn’t look anything alike.  The daughter looked like any young woman might; the mother looked like an old lady trying desperately to look young.  She had the typical cadaverous, wretched Botoxed face that some women apparently prefer to wrinkles.  In this way, it was certainly creepy.

I don’t mean to be cruel about this, but here’s the truth: Age does not make a woman unattractive, but pretending to ignore her age (with Botox, facelifts, fake tans, saline, etc.) does.  Cosmetic surgery like this is the biggest “inside joke” among men.  Any man who compliments a middle-aged woman using cosmetic surgery to cling to her youth is engaging in empty flattery.  He wants to get laid.  This is not cynicism; this is reality.  When men see this type of thing, they assume the woman has low esteem and will be easy to screw.

You know how pathetic most women find an aging, graying man who wears an obvious hairpiece and drives a sports car?  You know how young women laugh and mock older men who try to be “hip” but just come across as lecherous?  This is the analog; this is how most men see women like the one I’m talking about.

I think everyone should try to be practical about this.  Both men and women should accept aging and realize that it’s another facet of who you are.  Get used to it.  Pretending to be young just makes you appear pathetic.  If you want to look good as you get older, eat healthy and exercise.  At least face reality and realize that cosmetic surgery doesn’t work.  It doesn’t look natural, it doesn’t look real.  You’re not fooling anyone, and you’re contributing to a culture in which body parts equal beauty.

Laura Ingraham’s No Fat Zone

On The O’Reilly Factor the other day, guest host Laura Ingraham played the clip from her radio show in which she mocked Meghan McCain by saying (with a vapid, Girls Gone Wild voice): “I’m Meghan McCain and I wanted to be on The Real World, but they like, don’t accept plus-size models.”  Then Ms. Ingraham looked at the camera, gave a smile, and said, “I did not call Meghan McCain fat!”

Yes, Ms. Ingraham, you did.  For you to sit there and claim otherwise, to claim that you’re a victim of his left-wing bias and “selective liberal outrage” is pathetic.  And bringing up nasty things that have been said about you and jokes about Rush Limbaugh’s weight?  What does that have to do with anything?  Are you saying that you were justified in mocking a woman’s body because of those things?  Isn’t that an admission that you did indeed call her fat?

This has to be the most mind-boggling bit of spin I’ve ever seen on The O’Reilly Factor … and by the host no less.  O’Reilly should be ashamed.  If he doesn’t call Ms. Ingraham out on this, I’ll lose a lot of respect for him.  You play a tape of yourself making fun of a woman’s weight, then say you didn’t five seconds later.  I won’t call Ms. Ingraham a liar.  I have something worse in store for her: This was Clintonesque.  “It depends on what the definition of ‘plus-size’ is.”

Ms. Ingraham’s wounded protests were hilarious.  “Come on, I’ve said before that Meghan McCain was an attractive woman!”  She also let us know that she supports the plus-size body type and has blasted popular culture for idolizing the anorexic look in young women.  Check this out:  Didn’t Ms. Ingraham saying, “I didn’t call her fat; I’ve spoken against the Hollywood rail-thin image for years!” sound suspiciously like someone saying, “I’m not a racist; I have black friends?”

Stop trying to clean it up, Ms. Ingraham.  You made fun of the girl’s weight.  It’s not a big deal; your show has an entertainment element to it.  It was satirical.  Hell, I thought the mocking voice (painting Ms. McCain as shallow and stupid) was more insulting than saying she was plus size.  I don’t think you need to apologize or throw yourself at the mercy of the liberal whiners.  I don’t think you were trying to attack a woman’s physical appearance to shut down her political views or any such nonsense.  Just admit you poked fun at her weight!  Don’t insult us by thinking we’re actually going to swallow that line of Orwellian bullshit you tried to pass off.

Prison Story, Part Nine

I’ve been locked up for eleven years, and I’ve never even heard of a single case of rape among prisoners in the State of Washington.  Though the story may be different in other states, with “tougher” prisons, I doubt it.  The reason is something most people on the outside don’t consider.  Everyone knows how rapists and other sex offenders are viewed in prison, but they rarely realize that most prisoners have a similar attitude regardless of gender.  Rape is rape, whether the victim is a man or a woman.

I’ve heard critics of feminism try to use the male rape in prison as an argument, I’ve heard the jokes, I’ve seen the movies and television shows.  I’m reminded of one absurdity in pop culture: the Fox show Prison Break, in which a serial rapist (T-Bag) was supposedly the head honcho and “hardened con” that the others respected.  No way.  A serial rapist or child molester in prison will never be given social respect, no matter how tough he is, how many fights he wins, or even if he kills someone.

But it’s ironic that while most prisoners claim to despise sex offenders, many will unwittingly – sometimes in the same breath – state that women who dress in a certain way are “asking for it,” that it’s impossible for a man to rape his wife, or that women need to be “taught a lesson” with violent sex.  The last is by far the most common sentiment.

The abhorrence for rape is often relaxed when the woman in question is disliked because of her disposition.  One term I believe comes from prison vernacular is used when a woman’s attitude is not up to par; she is said to be in need of a “hate-fuck.”  A few prisoners can readily and quite seriously explain the “difference” between a hate-fuck and a rape.  I would go so far as to say the consensus among many male prisoners – even those who are very vocal against rapes – is that the cure for any undesirable attitude in a woman is for her to be humiliated sexually, to be shown her place.

You see the hypocrisy again in the discrimination against homosexuals.  A prisoner’s opinion in this matter often depends dramatically on whether the homosexual is dominant or submissive.  The submissive “punk” in a relationship between amle prisoners is always seen as weak and contemptible.  The “dad” may still be subject to homophobia, but in general, as long as he is acceptably masculine and willing to defend himself, he’ll do okay socially.  (That the term “dad” is commonly used to refer to a dominant sexual partner is rather a rather disturbing indication of the patriarchal roots of this attitude.  For the record, punks are also commonly referred to as the “kids” of their dominant partners.)

This type of hypocrisy is indicative of the lack of reason that I’m always talking about.  Many prisoners literally can’t see the contradiction in their words and actions, because they can’t look at the situation objectively.  They’re hampered by tradition, peer pressure, social acceptance, and pure ignorance.  They allow “common knowledge” and knee-jerk responses to overrride their reasoning.  This type of nonsense can be traced back to one thing: a deficiency in critical thinking skills.  This is the problem that must be addressed.  This is the root of faulty, destructive, and just plain stupid behavior and beliefs – and I dare say that it is not solely limited to convicted felons.

Why Tyra Banks is a Misogynist, Part Three

Here’s what I want to see: an episode of Montel Williams (or any similar moronic talk show hosted by a man) in which the topic is pornography.  Specifically, the psychological effects performing porn has on the male actors, and the reason why they do it.  Obviously, we have to start with the a priori assumption that any man who makes the choice to act in adult films was molested as a child.  Or abused.  Or held too much.  Or bullied in school.  Obviously he has a self-esteem problem.  Obviously he has an Oedipal issue.  Why else would he sell his body for money, for the viewing pleasure of others?

Ridiculous, righ?  let’s say what most people are thinking: Male porn stars choose their profession because they have the greatest job in the world.  They get paid to have sex with hot chicks.  They’re not emotionally scarred, and they weren’t abused as kids.  They want to have sex, and they want money.  There’s nothing wrong – or at least nothing psychologically aberrant – about such motivations.

Then we have the double standard.  When it’s female porn stars, everyone suddenly becomes an expert in pop psychology.  Suddenly the women were all sexually abused as little girls.  They’re all drug addicts.  They’re not trulymaking an informed choice, these armchair experts claim, they’re emotionally damaged and don’t really know what they’re doing.  They need therapy, or Jesus, or rehab.  These Dr. Phil wannabes even find retired porn stars to warn their “uninformed” sisters that they’re being exploited and abused (apparently without even knowing it).

Witness Tyra Bansk when her guest was the adult film actress Sasha Grey.  Ms. Banks just coulnd’t seem to believe Ms. Grey hadn’t been sexually abused, that she wasn’t being exploited, that she was doing exactly what she wanted to do.  Like all the other condescending pseudo-psychologists out there, Ms. Banks had decided that her guest fit into a stereotype, so everything Ms. Grey said only reinforced the fiction.

Faced with this situation, I’d like to see a female porn star say, “Oh, I’m sorry – I had no idea you knew more about the inner workings of my mind than I did myself.  Since it’s useless to argue with someone who has telepathic powers, I’ll go ahead and say that you’re right about every assumption you make about me.”

When female porn stars say something like, “I freely choose to do porn because it’s fun and it’s good money,” people like Tyra Banks simply don’t believe them.  They always try to find a “deeper cause.”

Is anyone out ther elookin gfor a deeper cause within male porn stars?  Why is it considered abnormal and unbelievable when it’s a woman?  Should women be under some special set of restrictions concerning their sexuality?  Men and women are different; no argument there.  Men and women on the average approach sex differently.  But this does not warrant blanket stereotypes and baseless pop psychology.

To be fair, I’m sure Tyra Banks had what she thought were Sasha Grey’s best interests in mind.  But this is simple misogyny.  It’s insulting to all women.  It implies that they’re not responsible for their own choices.  That they’re fragile, frightened dolls who – if they don’t behave like Daddy’s little princess – must have emotional damage that suppressed their sense of female propriety.  You can think pornography degrades women if you want, but it’s certainly degrading to demote them to hapless victims bound by emotional weakness.

Why Tyra Banks is a Mysogynist, Part Two

I was beginning to wonder if there’s anything more pathetic than a white woman who says, “I’m white, but I got booty.”  Then I was flipping channels, landed on Oxygen, and saw a stage with five women completely covered by a screen except for their asses (clad in tight spandex) put forth for the viewing (dis)pleasure of five male judges.  I figured that the channel had picked up one of MTV’s tasteless shows that blatantly exploits dumbness and insecurity in young adults, or maybe that Kallissa Miller had made a show for Oxygen.

But nope, it was that pillar of female maturity and authority, Tyra.  Once again proving that she’s in touch with the modern American woman, her topic was the insecurity some women apparently feel about how their ass measures up to those in rap videos.  Wow, what a great way to help young women with their self-esteem.  Instead of telling them to stop basing their self-worth on the amount of fat deposits in their gluteus maximus, Tyra Banks celebrates having “junk in the trunk” and asks men to rate the asses like they’re critiquing a new sports car.  I’m not exactly sure how having a group of moron decide for you whether your ass is sexy or not is supposed to address this issue.  I’m not exactly sure how any self-respecting woman could sit in the audience of a show like this and clap and cheer.  Maybe I’m just out of touch.

None of the women on the stage were physically unattractive.  But standing up there, asking those men to give them constructive criticism on a body part, whining about how they wanted their asses to be bigger, saying things like, “I attract a lot of black men because my butt is big,” and bringing new meaning to the term “make an ass out of yourself on television,” they certainly made themselves unattractive.

And as for Ms. Banks . . . well, she did her part to help out.  After one of the young women said she was insecure about her ass because her last boyfriend apparently watched porn before sleeping with her, Ms. Banks replied with, “I got booty, and I’ve still had boyfriends who watched porn.”

Okay, so Ms. Banks just validated the woman’s irrational self-consciousness about her ass, and says nothing to the effect that if you have a boyfriend who rejects you because your ass isn’t up to his porn-worthy specifications, maybe possibly – you’re better off without him anyway.

Here’s a message for insecure women who think thirty-five-year-old girls like Tyra Banks can help them: If you want to be attractive to men, stop thinking you have to be.

Sexism and Bias in Politics, Part II

It was ironic that I was just finishing a post about how the media is treating Sarah Palin unfairly, and how she’s getting blasted by supposed liberal commentators and not defended by fair-weather feminists – and at the same time I started reading the book Fire With Fire by feminist author Naomi Wolf.

The book is fifteen years old, but in one passage Ms. Wolf was criticizing feminist activists for shutting down antiabortion speakers.  Rather than acting like adults and debating the issue, they’d rather scream and throw tantrums so the other side can’t be heard.  Ms. Wolf, in contrast, said that it should be an “opportunity to try to persuade an entire audience of the need for abortion rights, if that is our view.”

Why is it that such rationalism is so rare, particularly in the hyper-partisan politics of today?  Feminists, like everyone else, shoudl be decrying the ad hominem attacks agains Sarah Palin and especially the questions about her mothering skills.  What governor in this country has not had a family?  What vice president nominee has not had kids?

But this is more than sexism; it’s liberal-Democrat sexism.  You’d never see a mainstream reporter on the national news questioning whether a Democratic female candidate should be staying at home with her kids.  You’d also never hear an issue being made of her husband’s drunk-driving conviction twenty-two years ago, or such a sanctimonious, repulsive inquisition about whether she’s worthy because her seventeen-year-old daughter is pregnant.

It is possible to be proud of Sarah Palin’s achievements and treat her with the same respect that any candidate (regardless of gender) deserves, and still disagree with her vehemently about her position on abortion.  I heard a young woman on TV mocking those who called Governor Palin a feminist because “You can’t be a feminist if you’re pro-choice.”  It would be interesting to hear this woman define the word “feminism.”

Perhaps she should read Fire With Fire, in which Ms. Wolf said, “Feminism should not be the property of the left or Democrats.”

No one can accuse Naomi Wolf of being the least bit right-wing, though some might think otherwise from quotes like that.  Partisans see only the dichotomy of whether you toe the party line, whereas rational people tend to recognize rationality when they see it.  Your argument determines the veracity of your position, not your ability to accuse the other side of fascism.

This liberal sexism is another way of shouting someone down.  If you don’t like Sarah Palin’s positions on abortion, then vote for another candidate!  You can certainly stand up and tell everyone why she’s dead wrong.  But don’t tell her she should be staying at home raising her kids.

Sexism and Bias in Politics

I’m so sick of hearing the Republican, right-wing cavemen out there demeaning women in politics.  They created an attack machine against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, claiming that her mothering skills were suspect, and that she “couldn’t run her own household, let alone the free world.”  Yep, those patriarchal Republicans are so typical in their hatred of strong, independent women.

The preceding paragraph is total bullshit, of course.  It was Michelle Obama who made the crack about Hillary Clinton not being able to run her own household.  The Republicans never had any sexist attack machine against Senator Clinton; the Obama sycophants in the media managed that all by themselves.  It’s clear where the true sexism is today.

Enter Sarah Palin, and we suddenly have an US Weeklycover that screams “Babies, Lies, and Scandal.”  We suddenly have liberal women on TV questioning whether Governor Palin should be running for vice president when she has a young child at home.  We suddenly have Democrats who are suspicious of her ethics because her seventeen-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant.  We suddenly hear Hitler references and fabrications about the “true” mother of Palin’s baby.  Barack Obama has never been asked a single tough questions about his policies or his dubious personal relationships: McCain’s running mate is announced and less than week later she’s already been slammed harder and more often than Obama ever was.

This double standard is absolutely sickening.  Silly me, thinking that a strong, intelligent woman with a family who’s running for the second-highest office in the country should elicit pride from everyone, especially women and particularly feminists.  Instead, one of Governor Palin’s “sisters” in the media asked whether she should be running for vice president because she has a young child at home.

How about this woman ask whether Barack Obama should be vying for the most important job in the world – by her rationale, won’t he be neglecting his two young daughters?  Could you imagine if Republicans said something like this about a female Democratic candidate?  Could you imagine the feminist marches, the public outcry, the demands for an apology?

But hey, Sarah Palin is pro-life and owns a gun – so who really cares?  It’s not like we can expect Gloria Steinem or any other fair-weather feminist to come rushing to her defense.  I remember Ann Coulter once remarking that some feminists despise her (Coulter) so much that although they’re normally against rape, they’d make an exception in her case.   Irrational partisanship has grown so ridiculous nowadays that I’m not even sure how much of exaggeration that is anymore.  After all, there are people who celebrate when a Republican gets cancer.  Michael Moore claims that “God is on our side” when a hurricane disrupts the Republican Convention. 

Here’s what’s funny:  The most apt coverage of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy came from Stephen Colbert.  After talking up a “shameful story” concerning Sarah Palin’s daughter (which everyone assumed to be the teen pregnancy), Colbert revealed his criticism: Palin had inflicted her daughter with the name Bristol.   He didn’t say a word about the pregnancy.  If only the “real” journalists would learn from Colbert.

I myself am pro-choice and socially progressive.  I think Palin’s position on having creation “science” taught in public schools is absurd.  I’m also a convicted felon.  And yet I wouldn’t repeat half the nasty, insulting, sexist things that are being said about Governor Palin and her family.  This entire election has become a circus, a popularity contest, a quest for scandal and entertainment.  You’ll find more depth and integrity on an episode of Big Brother.  Everyone needs to calm down and stick to the issues that are actually important.  Most of all, they need to grow up.

Why the Bible Can’t Help Prisoners

Sexism is par for the course in prison.  It’s not an exaggeration to say that a conversation concerning women can’t proceed for more than a sentence or two before the word “bitch” is used.  Crude slang is one thing; the issue here is a larger viewpoint that many prisoners have of women.  I think there’s a problem when the only socially acceptable way a man can verbalize his desire to be intimate with a woman is by wanting to “fuck the shit out of her”, “dig up in her guts”, or “kill that pussy.”

Not coincidentally, one of the gravest insults male prisoners can bestow upon one another is “bitch.”  It denotes extreme weakness and obligates the prisoner to respond physically, lest he be subjected to social shame and perhaps victimization.  Considering that the slur is also used universally to refer to women, this is a telling indication of how these men view the opposite gender:  The worst thing they can imagine to say to a man is to call him womanly.

The term “bitch” is so egregious to male prisoners because it denotes sexual submission.  The other unforgivable insult among prisoners, “punk”, means the same thing: a man who submits sexually.  It is not something as simple as misogyny among prisoners; these men do not necessarily or generally hate women.  Rather, what is on display is the patriarchal notion that “male” means strength and “female” means weakness.

The Bible is always the standby answer for how to help prisoners improve themselves.  In America, it is almost universally accepted that adopting the morality of the Bible is helpful – if not downright necessary – for a prisoner to achieve a proper moral sense.  So is there a lesson to be found in Christianity that can improve the coarse way these male prisoners view the opposite gender, improve their chances of having relationships with women in which both participants are equals?

The Bible is not only devoid of any message of equal rights for women, it repeatedly indicates exactly the opposite.  The tenth commandment classifies wives as the property of their husbands.  For two thousand years the patriarchal religions of Abraham’s God have demonized and even criminalized female sexuality.  Perhaps most contemptible is the centuries-long tradition of men owning and selling their daughters.  Old Testament laws legitimize dowries, stoning promiscuous women, even rape and sexual slavery (Deuteronomy 22.28 and Judges 21, if you think this is an unjustified accusation).

Certainly in the New Testament there are passages instructing men to treat their wives well, but there are also instructions for men to treat their slaves well.  Jesus was never specific about equal rights for women.  He never told men to stop selling their daughters or to allow women the right to marry whoever they want.  Even Paul, one of Jesus’s own Apostles, said that women should not be allowed to speak in church.  To this day, modern churches in every civilized country still refuse to accept women as members of the clergy.  Why?

Generation after generation of religious patriarchy, of women being owned and treated as chattel, of father bartering away their daughters’ hymens, of women being prevented from pursuing a career or doing anything else that interfered with their divinely predetermined role.  Women still couldn’t vote in the twentieth century.  What finally changed all of this?  Was it a great prophet of Christianity?  A newly revealed biblical passage?  Better understanding of Jesus’s teachings?

Of course not.  It was the civil rights movement and the secular recognition of inalienable human freedoms.  It was the denial of biblical obedience and a Constitution that forbade people from using their religion to determine the laws of the land.  Betty Freidan and women’s liberation accomplished more for equal rights than Jesus ever did.  And if equal rights for women was indeed part of Jesus’s message, why did he leave it up to mere mortals such as Freidan when he himself could have prevented a couple thousand years of bondage and bridal prices?  Imagine how different history might have been if Jesus had simply been more specific.