"Every Man Thinks He Knows All About Women"

A 1951 article about the pervasive cultural practice of woman-blaming and woman-burdening.  Remarkable, and not something I'm accustomed to finding in mainstream newspapers from the early 50s.  I think it's notable that this ran the day after Christmas, a day when women are often particularly burdened by everyone else's desires and expectations.  "Every Man Thinks He Knows All About Women" by Jane Whitebread and Vivian Cadden (Washington Post, 12/26/51)

The Suburban Grocery Store; or, A Yuppie Conniption

Housesitting for my parents in the western suburbs.  Needed to get a couple things from the grocery store.  Facepalming ensued.

***

Sometimes, going to Jewel after not having shopped there in a long time can make you kind of grumblecakey.  

FIRST, because it's so expensive and you're disgusted with how much money you used to drop there every week.  (Now you do a lot of your shopping at local markets [how CONSCIOUS of you!], but you also buy a lot of your pantry items at Target and some other stuff at Costco [so don't go patting your yupster self on the back].)

SECOND, because it's SO MUCH JUNK. (It's not that you don't like junk food. You do like it. Which is why you don't need it in your face at every turn.) Plus, our global food supply chain is SO EFFED. 

THIRD, because you cannot find any damned shopping baskets. There are none by the door, and it's a one-way automatic door, so you can't even go back out to where the carts are, and you don't need a damned cart for the 4 things you're getting. There are no baskets by the other door either. There are no baskets under any of the registers. You ask where the eff all the baskets are, and the employee points to a stack of 3 dirty ones sitting against a random wall, and explains that they don't really keep many in the store. Because this is the western suburbs, where people regularly shop like they have a family of 80 and a hurricane is coming. 

FOURTH, because you realize you forgot the damned hummus as you're pulling out of the parking lot, and you need that hummus for a meeting. (Remember when you said 4 things? You meant 5.) And again, this is the western suburbs, so everything (or at least everything that's not a cutesy boutique in the historic downtown shops) is in a big box complex on major county roads with one-way exits and blocked turns and heavy traffic and it takes waiting for 2 different red turn lights, a U-turn, and a drive through a cratered parking lot of an abandoned strip mall to get back to the same damned grocery store. 

FIFTH, because you can't even FIND the effing hummus, because this isn't YOUR Jewel. You finally ask two employees where the hummus is, and they look at you for a second like they're not even sure hummus is a thing. Then they figure out where it is, and you go there, and you find the brand you want, but they have like 89 containers of the super spicy flavor and only a few of various other flavors, and they're all stacked mixed together at the back of the shelf, in no kind of order, with their labels facing the wrong way, so you have to dig just to find your GOD DAMNED ROASTED PINE NUT HUMMUS. 

But you finally find the last roasted pine nut hummus. And you relish in your little victory and say, "I am a ridiculous yuppie person."

Using Your Brain: On Homos, Popes, and Douches

I hate to tell you this, but if you think homosexuality is “evil” or “wrong,” or if you think everyone shouldn’t have the right to marry the person they love…I think you’re a douche.

BUT YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!

Why not?

BECAUSE MY RELIGION!  My religion tells me homosexuality is an abomination so you can’t think I’m a douche!

Nope, I still think you’re a douche.  Know why?  Because I think people should use their fucking brains.

You don’t get to hide behind forms of ignorance within your religion and then walk around with moral impunity.  You don’t.  I don’t have to be “tolerant” of your intolerance, and not being tolerant of your intolerance is not even close to real religious discrimination.  I don’t have to let you enact hate on people.

You also don’t get to play the “love the sinner, hate the sin” card with me on this.  You don’t get to insist that you love homosexuals but that you believe that a homosexual “lifestyle” is immoral.  You don’t get to say, “No no, I love YOU as a PERSON, I just think your life is sinful and wrong.”  That’s not love.  That’s hate dressed up in a polite hat.  That’s just hate without the guts to admit to it.  It’s COWARDLY hate.  Yes, my friend, it’s still hate – it’s just hate that allows you to be smug, superior, and condescending at the same time.

Do I think you’re purposefully being a douche?  Not necessarily.  Because hate isn’t always intentional or conscious.  You might think your hate is love.  It’s not.  And we should recognize these things in ourselves and try to be better.

Do I think you’re ENTIRELY a douche?  Probably not.  People can have douchey positions on things and still not be all douche, you know what I’m saying?  You could be otherwise a good person, but still be a real shitheel when it comes to this one thing. 

Which is why I facepalm every time someone defends the new pope’s comments on homosexuality by screaming, “BUT HE WASHES THE FEET OF AIDS PATIENTS!” 

One.  Stop equating AIDS with homosexuality, or attempting to appeal to my pro-equality position by insinuating that supporting AIDS patients is basically the same as supporting homosexuals, or that supporting AIDS patients in their capacity as AIDS patients somehow makes up for casting hatred toward a specific group of people.

Two.  GOOD FOR HIM!  That’s awesome and symbolic and I absolutely grant you that this pope will probably do more for the poor and vulnerable in developing nations than any other.  I look forward to the progress he can potentially bring to that area of social justice.  But that doesn’t mean I don’t think his positions on sexuality suck. 

I know, I know.  He’s the Pope.  The leader of the Catholic Church.  And the Catholic Church does not believe in birth control, homosexuality, etc.  Asking a pope to be progressive on sexual and reproductive rights is like expecting the Republican nominee for president to like big government.  If he believed in those things, he wouldn’t be nominated as a representative of an organization that expressly does NOT believe in those things.

But here’s the thing…many, many Catholics DO believe in birth control, in equal rights for everyone, including homosexuals.  In fact, providing equal rights for everyone is actually a very Catholic thing to believe in, philosophically speaking.  

If I’ve learned anything from growing up around the Catholic Church, it’s that cognitive dissonance doesn’t seem to cause much alarm. 

On the one hand, the ability to accept things that don’t always make sense is what allows for faith in the first place.  And this is not a bad thing.  It’s also a crucial part of other forms of belief, especially when it comes to things like art, and even history.  (And no, I don’t think religion and science have to be opposed on this front.)

On the other hand, though, the disinclination to at least recognize when beliefs are harmful or untenable even WITHIN the teachings of a particular faith, is at best naïve ignorance and at worst willful disregard.  It’s destructive.  And it bankrupts one of the most productive parts of faith – epistemological exploration.  Faith should be about questions, not definitive answers.  I think a lot of Catholics get this, and it’s a shame that the official Church often lets it be forgotten (or at least often pretends that it’s upholding the idea when it’s really not). 

When religion becomes more about doctrine and less about living faith, it turns into a standardized test.  Instead of teaching to the test, we should be encouraging the active use of our inquisitive faculties.  We should be finding ways to push our brains to think thoughts we haven’t thought before, because the greatest resource in the push for good in the world is the potential of what people are allowed to imagine.   That means allowing them to disagree without casting them out.  That means allowing them to think OUTSIDE Church doctrine, instead of only within its narrow confines.

So yes, in short, I think people should use their fucking brains.  And I think that, given the opportunity to use their brains a little more critically, more Catholics will come to the conclusion that denying a person dignity, autonomy, and equal rights specifically because of who they love is just plain unCatholic.  And I think this extrapolates quite nicely to other denominations and religions.

So I don’t think I’m out of line when I again tell you that if you think homosexuality is an abomination, I think you’re a douche.

That doesn’t necessarily mean I think you’re a bad person.  It means I think you need to use your brain with regard to this particular situation.  Don’t hide behind religious talking points or cheat sheets, or insist that the Bible tells you so.  The Bible says a lot of things.  Use your brain.  If you still come to the conclusion that homosexuality is an abomination…well…use your brain harder.  And if you STILL come to the conclusion that homosexuality is an abomination – not because an old dude told you so or because your family informed you that that’s what you believe (or because you just think it's "icky"), but because, after truly exploring the world around you and using your critical thinking skills, you decide that this position is the right one – well, I disagree wholeheartedly, and I’m disappointed.  But at least you used your brain!

Or maybe I am out of line, and I’M the douche.  You’re allowed to think that, as long as you use your brain to do it.

Jewelry Store Commercials; or, Gender Relations at the Mall

I know, I know, it's no secret that jewelry store commercials are effed up, and it's not even a secret WHY.  But still...I can't deal with them, especially now that we're in full-on Valentine's Day hysteria.  I don't think anyone who has spent any time working on gender and media will find any of this groundbreaking, but I just have to write it out.  My screed is in two parts.  Both take on gender, but the first concerns mostly narrative and performative absurdity, and the second concerns ideological assumption.  


FIRST: A rant on narrative in the most recent Kay Jewelers ad.



I can't find a video online yet, but for now, the basic premise: A couple is walking through the mall.  They head into Kay Jewelers. Man says, "We're just looking, right?" Woman insists, "Of course." They look at diamond rings. The jeweler explains these special certified diamonds. She tries on the ring. OMG it fits. Man says, "That's because I already got it sized." Knees. "Will you marry me?" She looks surprised. 



WTF? 


a) This is absurd, because who goes to try on rings and then is surprised about a proposal? I think the jig is up. 


OR b) Taking into account the fact that he's sort of standoffish about ring shopping at the beginning, this is still absurd, because his way of not tipping her off to a proposal is to act like he doesn't want to get engaged and vaguely imply that she's pressuring him? And, to be fair, she's dragging him to a jewelry store to try on rings despite the fact that he's expressed his unwillingness to get engaged yet? I hope you guys are very happy in your passive aggressive marriage lol.

My friend Alex pointed out,

"I can't believe your biggest issue with this isn't that the guy is proposing to her IN A KAY JEWELERS! Who does that? Especially since all other of their commercials are about a guy surprising a woman with something he bought there by himself, so based on what we know from these it's narratively inconceivable that these characters have shared some sort of 'special moment' at a Kay Jewelers prior to this proposal, which would be the only possible justification for proposing in a place that probably smells like the Auntie Anne's Pretzels inevitably being sold next door."


Hahaha fair.  The mall part DOES bother me.  But I guess it's all part of a really weird consumerist-heteronormative imperative anyway, so why quibble, intellectually speaking?  If you're going to symbolically buy a marriage, why not at a mall?  I mean basically the assumptions here are out of control, but the biggest one is that it's a man's job to propose, even if it's possibly based on a woman's demand, and it's his job to buy her a big assed rock in order to seal the deal. Her end of the agreement is to act surprised and dewy-eyed.  


I want to be clear that I don't really feel one way or the other about the practice of proposing with diamond rings.  I think people should do whatever they want on that front, and I can't say I'd hate it.  I don't think the act itself is inherently evil or unfeminist or superficial or whatever else.  What I'm objecting to is the imperative.  The taken-for-granted and compulsory nature of such symbolic performances.



SECOND: A rant on ideology in the "He went to Jared" model.


The current object of my indignation is the kind of commercial that basically says, "DEAR STRAIGHT MEN: YOU MUST FIND A SUITABLE FEMALE TO MATE WITH AND YOU MUST BUY HER JEWELRY OR SHE WILL BE PISSED AND YOU WILL DIE."



a) We'll just get the macro one out of the way - again, really gross consumerist-heteronormative cocktail going on here.  Apparently jewelry is only for straight people, and almost entirely for women.  If it's not for your wife/fiance/girlfriend, it's for your mother or grandmother.  And jewelry equals love, people!  They won't know unless you buy them shit.  You're a bad partner or a bad son or a bad grandson if you don't buy them shit.  Better get your ass to the mall.  (Note: I have no problem with jewelry.  I love jewelry.  I'm not pretending I don't buy stuff, or that I don't like getting stuff.  I have some awesome pieces of jewelry from my significant other that I adore.  But I don't think I should need them in order to know the state of my relationship.  I'm not trying to be smug or superior or to play the "I'm not a dupe!  I'm not a dupe!  You should know that about me!" game.  I do indulge in symbolic consumerism.  I just think it's important to think about all the assumptions that go along with it.)


b) These commercials treat men like helpless idiots.  Poor, stupid men.  But if he goes to Jared, we'll totally pat him on the head and give him a treat.   Good boy!  Frankly, some of these commercials even imply that men are inconsiderate jerks (but only straight, cis men, since there's nary a non-hetero or non-cis to be found).  So there's offensive assumption #1: Men are stupid and inconsiderate.  But the back side of assumption #1 is that, by assuming that men will be unthinking and uncaring boneheads, these commercials not only insult men, they also sort of naturalize the notion that men are unthinking and uncaring boneheads in a way that essentially approves of it.  Like it's "normal" for men to be unthinking and uncaring.  Because they're men!  Duh!  We should all just adjust to their (supposed) self-centeredness and then maybe just give them easy instructions on how to avoid pissing women off on consumerist holidays. So there's offensive assumption #2.  So the big old offensive nutshell: Men are stupid and inconsiderate (ouch!), but they're allowed to be because they're men, and we should continue to reinforce, if not celebrate, this notion (wait a minute!).  


c) And, finally, these commercials perpetuate the notion that women are materialistic and demanding.  We want shiny things, and if you don't give us shiny things, you are in TROUBLE and we will NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU, so you'd better GET IT RIGHT.  You are a bad, bad partner and a bad, bad man if you don't get it right!  But the most annoying part about this is that it upholds the SAME assumption as above - namely, that men are "naturally" unthinking and uncaring - but then implies that the only time women should combat this is when it's time for presents.  Forget asking that people think differently or behave differently or question their assumptions in everyday gender relations.  No no, let's accept the status quo there, but then designate specific days when we demand recognition through shiny things.  The problem is not that your mother and your wife and your fiance and your girlfriend often get the shit end of power relations.  The problem is that you haven't given them enough jewelry on holidays.  That's what they're mad about.


CONCLUSION


So basically now I've dissected these things to the point of ridiculousness.  I don't pretend that commercials for mall jewelry are the place where gender activism is going to happen.  The purpose of advertising is to symbologize.  Often, although not always, it works to flatten difference in consumers, even while it hyperdifferentiates products.  I'm not going to pretend capitalism - or propaganda, if you're feeling feisty - is something it's not.  I'm also not going to pretend that I don't participate.  But, even if I don't expect these commercials to be a place where gender is questioned, they are still a place where gender is done.  Maybe sometime it will become profitable to undo gender in commercials - and there are of course a few shining examples that unfortunately prove the rule - but even then it would be an uneasy form of "victory," one that would be more about capitalized consumer affinity than progressivism, let alone activism.  For now, anyway, the work of undoing is up to the rest of us.