Gender Privilege isn't always what it's cracked up to be

Okay, let's get real. I am not going to sit here and pretend that men don't have it all over women in the United States (I don't live in other countries, so I'm not addressing their gender-privilege issues; I am, however, acknowledging that the Internet is a global thing). We do. We get better pay (statistically, if not in my personal recent experience). We are thought more highly of when we're in a position of power. Hell, our reputations are improved by the accusation that we've had sex. In a lot of ways, being a man is pretty awesome (sorry, ladies).

But I recently stumbled across a link on Facebook to this article: Proof of Male Privilege that lists various proofs of, well, male privilege, and I was taken a little aback by #4: that men can show skin. Oh, sure, he's talking about a man's ability to go home, throw on a pair of shorts, strip off his shirt, and go out for a jog, letting his nipples breath the fresh air.

My thoughts, however, immediately went to the workplace. Let's look for a moment at what's considered "Professional Dress" for men:

Please note: this is from an Internet Search for "professional dress". My professions have generally allowed jeans and a polo shirt, but this is more the standard for Professional Dress.
Now, let's look at professional dress for women:

 Do you see what I see?

Like I said, I don't want to pretend that men don't live in a near-constant state of privilege around here, but there is one place where women have a distinct advantage, and that is dress. Not only can any of the women above go strolling through the city on a June day and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine on their arms and legs -- and in some cases, parts of their cleavage (oh, the poor man on the far right who has to run out in a heat wave in that three-piece monstrosity ;) ). but look what else women have.
Women have COLOR! Fuscia, ivory, aqua (not pictured), lavendar (np). And, of course, they can wear gray if they so desire. Men? Well, sure we have color choices. We can wear slate gray. Or we can wear charcoal gray. Or we can really get wild and crazy and go for NAVY! Nope, if a man wants color, to express his individuality, well, I suppose he has the tie.

I'd move on to beach wear, but I'm pretty sure that *is* a case of male privilege. With the teeny tiny beach wear I see available for women, it just screams that women are required to have large chests and itty-bitty waists, whereas men get to just take their shirts off. It was clearly designed by heterosexual males so they could ogle women, just like board shorts for men were designed so men wouldn't have to be accosted by each others' more private parts.

Anyway, before you go off in a rage about how I'm ignoring the very real ways that women are still subjugated, let me say again what I said at the beginning: Male Privilege definitely exists. The article I linked to at the beginning makes some real points about how advantaged we are. It's just that to say "We can show skin and they can't" is a little ... short-sighted. Also, please don't take me overly seriously here.

100 Most Influential Albums? Why?

I've seen several people on Facebook taking a "100 Most Influential Albums" "quiz". And fool that I am, I commented to one of them, objecting to the whole thing ... because I'm opinionated that way. *g* But really, never mind the fact that people think they need an app when a list would work just as well -- and who knows what else that app is doing while you're telling it what albums you have and don't have -- and giving it access to all of the personal information that Facebook demands that you provide it. Remember the days when we didn't put any personal information on the Internet because, "Who knows what kind of people are out there?" -- And never mind their use of the word "quiz" instead of "survey": quizzes have right and wrong answers, and really -- it's not *wrong* to not own Bob Dylan's Another Side of Bob Dylan.
This is just one problem with the quiz, which Citysound Bohemian conveniently posted here -- why run "some fool app" which is going to gather all of your personal information (because Facebook is fun that way) when the survey would have been just as well served by a list. Or if they really wanted to display a score, it could be done much more simply with a little bit of javascript.
That brings me to what's really wrong in this "quiz" -- I also saw a list here, "The 101 Most Influentual Albums in Rock 'n Roll History" and guess what? They don't agree. Why? Because they're the list-writers' personal opinions. And to both of them, I say, "Pfft!" Lots of 60s "classic rock" and "folk rock"; plenty of Bob Dylan, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. But how many of those were influential? How many of them actually changed the face of music? And how many albums that did change the face of music were ignored because this person just doesn't like Pop? (Never mind that in 1964, the Beatles were pop.)
And where are the women? Okay, they did include women. But seriously, the "quiz" doesn't even include Carole King!They included Patti Smith, Laura Nyro and Joni Mitchell -- one album each -- but how about Aretha Franklin? How about Heart (Ann and Nancy Wilson)? How about Janice Joplin? Every pop diva since has credited Whitney Houston with being her inspiration. If that's not influence, I don't know what is.
They included plenty of the first British Invasion (of the 1960s) but what about the second? What about the "New Wave"? Where is the Disco era? Where is Rap? Don't like Disco and Rap? Well, guess what? Not all influences are good influences. If you're seriously going to list the 100 most influential albums, you're probably going to have to include albums you don't like and any "Influential Albums" list worthy of the name has got to include the Hues Corporation's Freedom for the Stallion, which made Disco popular, and Run-D.M.C's self-titled album, which brought rap to the mainstream. Justin Beiber's first album may have been loaded with garbage, but it was the first album to spawn from a "YouTube Sensation". Love it or hate it, it should be listed in any list of Most Influential Albums. Somebody started the Disco Era. Somebody also killed the Disco Era. I blame credit Barbra Streisand for the album Guilty (because, really, if Streisand is doing disco, it's past its prime), but it would probably be more fair to say that Dance killed Disco. Maybe the credit should go to an album like the Fame soundtrack, so maybe it should be listed among the 100 most influential albums. Certainly something should.
Speaking of soundtracks, I think it's safe to say that the first movie soundtrack ever, and the first Broadway musical soundtrack ever can predate whatever influential list you want to make ... otherwise, you're going to get bogged down in Beethoven, Bach and Brahms. But in the early 1980s, something changed in the movie soundtrack industry. Before 1980, movies had a theme song, but to have a musical, the cast broke into song. Now, movies are just loaded with song after song so that the movie makers can have a soundtrack album without someone asking, "Why are New York City gang members singing and dancing?" The transition may have began with A Chorus Line and the aforementioned Fame, where it actually made sense for the characters to sing, but the most influential album of the New Musicals was probably Flashdance. The story of an exotic dancer who wants to go to "serious dance school" bridges the gap from A Chorus Line and Fame to Beverly Hills Cop and Top Gun (and more) where music serves as a background to the action. Plus, it predates Footloose by 1 year.
The first Backstreet Boys album should be on the list, since it started the Boy Band craze -- even if The Beatles and various other mop-topped bands of the 60s started out as boy bands -- but including them won't please the folk/rock fans the list writer was trying to appeal to.
Where would Blake Shelton, Taylor Swift and Carrie Underwood be today if Kenny Rogers, Eddie Rabbit, Dolly Parton and Crystal Gayle hadn't opened the pop charts to country music in the early 1980s? But which one makes the "most influential" list? Well, Kenny Rogers' The Gambler and Eddie Rabbit's The Best of Eddie Rabbit (which started his cross-over success with the single "Every Which Way But Loose") both came out in 1978. Dolly Parton's Here You Come Again came out in 1977. Crystal Gayle's We Believe In Magic came out the same year, but is credited as the first album by a female country artist to go platinum. But in 1976 (the first year platinum albums were designated), The Outlaws' Wanted was certified platinum. (The Outlaws were Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, and Jessi Colter in case you were wondering). Of course, I wouldn't object to having two country albums on a list of The Most Influential, especially since Gayle shattered Country's "glass ceiling" so darn quickly, so she gets the female credit. Alas, reviews say that Wanted is not a very good album -- but as I said before, we're talking influence here, not good music.
So, really, "influential" doesn't mean good, and "influential" doesn't mean you want it, so who cares how many truly influential albums you own. Like Citysound Bohemian said, buy what you like and listen to what you like, and if you want to know what influenced the music industry? Go for it. There's a world of Internet sites out there to tell you what influenced the music industry. And if you don't have all those albums, it may just mean that you have good taste.

Freedom of Speech? Depends on the Speech

There is a word in this post that some might find offensive. Whatever. If you're not grown up enough to see the word religion Jesus penis in a blog post, then just ... find another blog to read or play Angry Birds or something.

A friend on line recently posted a picture of a billboard that said, "Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one. It's okay to be proud of it. But don't go waving it around in public." I find it seriously odd that the same people who are usually first to defend our rights are so quick to try to subvert them when it comes to religion.

(I don't find it nearly as odd when the people who are first to try to defend their religion are so quick to try to subvert our rights when it comes to everything else. That's "show biz".)

I live in a great country ... or what should be a great country: The United States of America. It was founded on a set of principles found in The United States Constitution and The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution). The first of those rights is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Now, first, yes, the amendment is that Congress shall make no law... but still, the principle is that an individual -- any individual -- has the freedom to express himself or herself, to believe what he or she wants to believe, etc, etc.

So, there are a bunch of people who believe that abortion is wrong, that homosexual sex is wrong, that contraception is wrong ... and some of this group even believe that women working is wrong. And let's not limit this to the "God hates gays" crowd**. There are also plenty of people who at least claim that someone being gay doesn't bother them, that they just don't want it "shoved in their faces." You know what? This is America*. Whatever they believe, they don't have the right to pass laws forcing those beliefs on the rest of you (or, as the case may be, us). You have the right (via Roe v Wade) to terminate a pregnancy. I have the right to smooch my boyfriend same-sex relationship in public (yeah, if only) and if you're a woman, you have the right to work. You should have the right to equal pay, but we haven't managed to get that law passed, so ... good luck with that *sigh*.

But you know what? Because this is America, THEY have the right to believe that abortion is wrong, that homosexual sex is wrong, that contraception is wrong. And they even have the right to express that belief. What they don't have the right to do is force you to believe what they believe. They do have the right, however, to tell you what they believe.

But the same people who are defending my right to hold hands with my boyfriend same-sex relationship (see above in re "if only") -- because I should have the freedom of expression in the face of those who say I am "flaunting my sexuality" -- will claim that these people don't have the right to flaunt their religion and should ... keep it in their pants. People have even told me, "But your sexuality isn't a choice." When did the Freedom of Expression start only applying to things we have no choice over? Also, if you can't control who you hold hands with in public, then ... there are treatment centers that may be able to help. Seriously, I'm actually all for public displays of affection (well... mostly for, anyway) but there's a name for not being able to control what your hands do, and it usually requires medication.

In the movie, The American President, President Andrew Shepherd, played by Martin Sheen says (in part), "You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Well, for you liberals out there, you want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. It also has to be someone exercising his or her right to say something you find repugnant.

The freedom of speech is a great and wonderful thing, but it has to be applied equally to all. If someone is saying something that you find offensive, sure, you have the right to be offended. You have the right to say that you're offended. You even have the right to tell that person he or she is wrong. Heck, tell the whole world that person is wrong. This is America*! But you don't have the right to prevent that person from saying his offensive thing. This is America*.

And while we're at it, let's be clear on the difference between "Freedom of religion" and "Freedom from religion". The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. You want to believe Jesus is the Only Way? You have that right. You want to believe the universe was created by The Spaghetti Monster? You have that right. You want to believe nothing at all? You have that right. But when someone comes up to you and tells you that Jesus is the Only Way, they are not infringing on your right to believe in the Spaghetti Monster. If someone comes up to you and says, "You're going to hell," it doesn't mean that you are. ... It doesn't mean you aren't, either, let's just be clear on that. It just means that that person is rude. And you have every right to tell that person that he or she is being rude. Because this is America*.

And if that person tells you, "I'm just telling you what I believe" -- doubtful that they'd be that insightful, but let's go with it -- well, they have every right to believe it. They even have every right to be rude in their expression of what they believe. Because this is America*. Rudeness is protected speech under the US Constitution. But you know what? When you tell people, "You can't go up to people and tell them that Jesus is the only way because it's rude," ... well, you may have the right to say that, but you're wrong. You're now infringing on their right to freedom of both speech and religion.

*Apologies to those of you for whom this is not America, but for me it is.

**God doesn't hate gays, but that's another blog post. ... And you can read it here.

If all Superheroes dressed like Wonder Woman

There's a picture floating around Facebook where Wonder Woman says, "If I don't get pants, no one gets pants." ... now let's see if I can link to that picture. https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/545803_419539401398843_100000283604812_1543425_1291662531_n.jpg
While I appreciate the artist's efforts and intent, I think she kind of missed the boat here. Putting Wonder Woman in a ludicrous outfit wasn't an effort to humiliate her (a la Green Lantern's skirt). It was an attempt to turn her into a sex object --- complete with a bustier that in reality, if she were to fight, there's no way her boobs would stay inside that thing. The question the artist should have asked herself was not "What would embarrass a man?" but rather, "What outfits would turn a man into the same ludicrous level of sex-object?"
Or to put it less delicately, since Wonder Woman looks dressed more for porn than for fighting crime, how would we dress the male superheroes for porn? Oh, but not straight porn. Everybody knows straight porn is as aimed toward straight men as comic books are. How would we dress male superheroes for gay porn?

So, I give you ...

Superman

 (note that in none of these have I removed the original logo and replaced it with Wonder Woman's. That was just silly.)

Batman
(Sorry, Bats: WW doesn't get a mask, so neither do you. I hope you like your bat-ear tiara.)

Aquaman

(Okay, so Aquaman's costume isn't that different from your typical Olympic swimmer. Except the silly gloves.)

All 4 Green Lanterns of Earth (or rather, space sector whatever-it's-called *g*)

And I threw in Captain Marvel

(trademarked as Shazam! because Marvel comics also has a Captain Marvel. Note the lightning bolt cut-out in the center of the chest, a la Power Girl. [look it up] *g*)

And Nightwing (aka Dick Grayson, who used to be Batman's original Robin.)

Enjoy, ladies! And, crime-fighters, watch out for chaffing.

I wonder where that pet shop is.

Screen cap courtesy of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

Geometrees

Will add text later. Sorry.

One Christian Perspective on Gay Marriage

This past weekend, New York state became the 6th in the United States to pass a law allowing gay marriage. Not civil unions, not domestic partnerships, marriage. And amid the friends congratulating New York and celebrating New York and, yes, loving New York, I saw a handful of conservatives. One man on the news decried the fact that our children will be referring to two men as husband and husband. Others of course quoted Leviticus 18:22, got sarcastic about when "we" can complain about others' beliefs being crammed down "our" throats or say that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

And I breathe a heavy sigh.

I'll counter those arguments later. First, I want to point out that these are supposedly Christian people and they are doing more damage to the Cause of Christ than any den of iniquity ever could. It used to be that non-Christians just saw Christians as being "no fun". Remember Billy Joel? "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than die with the saints"? Well, that's all changed, probably in the last thirty years or so. Non-Christians now see Christians as hateful and mean-spirited, and we only have Christians (or people who call themselves Christian) to blame.

It started with abortion laws and the protests that go with them. People stand on corners with signs that have hideous pictures on them, accusing women who are at the end of their ropes of being murderers and minions of Satan. And now, as gay rights continue to make inroads into the law of the land, they have turned their ire against homosexuals. Signs on street corners and funerals say "God Hates Gays" and "Burn In Hell", and they're being carried by people from "The Church". And it doesn't help to claim that there is one very loud very fringe church out there when the same message -- with less vitriol, but the same underlying message -- comes from so many other churches. Do they really think that yelling at people will change their behavior? Yelling at people fuels resentment; any child will tell you that.

But more importantly, these people like asking, "What would Jesus do?" but really, what would Jesus do? While we don't have any accounts of Jesus and homosexuals in the New Testament, which I think is telling in and of itself, we do have accounts of Jesus confronting other sinners. When Jesus was confronted by a woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) -- or rather, by a mob who had caught a woman in adultery -- he said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone," and then when the mob dispersed, and he asked the woman who condemns her and there was no one, he said, "Nor do I condemn you." He also said to go and sin no more, but that's not the point. The point is that Jesus did not say, "By this they will know you are my disciples, by your hatred of people who don't share your beliefs and religious practices." He said, "By this they will know you are my disciples, by your love for one another." (John 13:35) No one is seeing Christians' love for one another. They're seeing hatred. And do you remember who Jesus hated? Jesus saved his vitriol for the religious leaders of his time who were putting obstacles in the way of sinners who wanted to know God. He called them "blind guides" and "white-washed tombs" (Matthew 23; see also Luke 11). And here we are, 2000 (give or take) years later, with more blind guides and white-washed tombs placing more stumbling blocks between people and the God who loves them.

That's right. God loves them. God loves homosexuals. God loves adulterers. God loves people who cheat on their taxes. He even loves Christians. He may hate some of the things that people do, but "In this, God shows his love for us: that while we were sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8) Christians actually believe that -- and many of them became Christians because -- Jesus came into the world and died on a cross to pay the penalty for their sins. But now that they're in, many Christians want to act as spiritual INS agents, and while Jesus is saying, "Give us your tired and your poor," they're saying, "Go away. We don't want you."

This HAS to stop. God loves you, warts and all. He wants you to be in a relationship with him, but our sin is standing in the way. That's right, our sin. Mine too. He provided the way to have that relationship, by putting our sin to death on a cross so that we, by believing in Jesus Christ, can have our sin washed clean and be in that relationship with the Living God.

Then there's the complaint that we're cramming a religious viewpoint down someone's throat. That's just backward. No one is forcing "straight" people to get same-sex marriages or even attend same-sex marriages. In the words of Wanda Sykes, "If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." It's the people who are trying to prohibit same-sex marriage who are forcing their beliefs on other people because they're trying to enforce others' behavior based on what they believe. But this is America --- actually, this is the Internet, which has no country, but I'm writing in America, so deal! ;-) --- we act based on our beliefs in accordance with the laws and the Constitution. And part of that is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (United States Constitution, Amendment I) So when we see a law that favors a particular religious system only because of those religious beliefs, we get it changed.

And of course the argument that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman is circular at best. English is a thriving, vibrant language. When I was a child, "aint wasn't a word because it wasn't in the dictionary." Now it is. When I was a child, Internet was not in the dictionary either. Besides, who defines marriage as between a man and a woman? Not Merriam-Webster. If you check on-line at merriam-webster.com, the first definition of marriage is, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." So both heterosexual and same-sex marriages are recognized. Of course, Merriam-Webster includes as their third definition, "an intimate or close union " So, I ask you. Is painting the man or the woman?

If you're going to argue that marriage is defined by God, you're back to that same forcing of religious beliefs onto others. But there's another problem. If marriage is defined by God and the union of two men or two women is unnatural, then I've got a laundry list for you.

Getting your nutrition from a pill (store-bought vitamins) is unnatural.

"Speaking" through hand-gestures (sign language) is unnatural. God gave you lips and ears. Are non-deaf people sinning if they communicate through ASL?

Wearing clothing is unnatural. When God created man and woman, they were naked and they felt no shame. It's right there in Genesis. So, go ahead and take off your unnatural clothes before you go parading with your "God Hates..." signs.

I could go on all day, but I won't.

As to the idea that our children will be referring to two men as husband and husband, I have no fear for our children, who will hopefully grow up in a world where equality is valued, where people are treated with respect and their rights are protected regardless of sexual orientation as well as race, creed and color.

But, for those people who are going to insist that people follow the law of God, ... really? You want to go there? Well, first you'd better know what the Law of God says --- at least according to the bible.

The big problem with Leviticus is that if you're going to live according to the law, you're going to have to live according to the whole law. So, what does the whole law say? Well, in part, it says in Leviticus 11:6-10, "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to regard as unclean. " But we don't see Christians rallying outside the city diner protesting bacon, crab imperial and hossenfeffer.

The second part of Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." But are Christians willing to give up their polyblend? Somehow, I doubt it.

The first half of Leviticus 19:26 says, "Do not eat meat with the blood still in it," so you can forget your nice, thick, juicy steak, too, unless you're going to dry it out first.

(Note: when I include half a verse, it's not because the other half contradicts, it's just because that part would be making a different point.)

Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." And yet, so many of the men standing on these protest lines are clean-shaven. Do they not read their bibles? --- well, in many cases, probably not.

And Leviticus 20:10 says, "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death," but the penalty for adultery in this country isn't death, it's divorce. So why is no one standing outside of divorce court telling the adulterers that God hates them? These are the questions that the non-Christian who knows what the bible says is asking. Because he or she may also know what it says in Leviticus 19:37: "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD." But Christians have this way of picking and choosing which of the Lord's laws are ... convenient, which ones they can berate people with and which ones they'll be happier if people ignore.

So, now that I've driven away the self-righteous that I need to reach by comparing them to the Pharisees, and I've driven away the sinners that I want to reach by going all-religious on them, let's get to the rest of it.