in case you didn’t know, october is serious about awareness.  i mean, really–there are, what, 30-something things to know about?  it’s national arts and humanities awareness month, lgbt history month, national dental hygiene month, polish-american heritage month, and fair trade month, to name a very, very few.  some of the causes i feel more strongly about than others.  for instance, i’m not desperate to enjoy a polish sausage sandwich while i take a hayride, which–according to the internet–is how polish-american hertiage month is celebrated.  but sign me up for passing out samples of fair trade coffee.

free car with purchase of 6,000 stickers!

thanks to email, text messages, and facebook, i’ve spent the month being bombarded by form posts about awareness.  thanks–most especially–to facebook, i’ve been informed that absurd messages about where i like to put my purse would cure breast cancer.  good to know.  i’m sure when they come up with a similar cure for kidney cancer or uterine cancer, the female members of my immediate family will be thrilled.  similarly, i discovered that if i joined a group of people who said they’d wear purple on spirit, i’d never have to worry about any of my lgbt friends suffering torment.  ever again.  srsly, k?  here’s a secret:  i know some of my friends were in that group.  and i saw a few of them on spirit day.  not wearing purple.  which means that it didn’t work.  way to jinx it.  jerks.

frankly, i’m just offended.  that’s really all you can manage?  my mom is a cancer survivor, and the way my generation pays tribute is to post a chain letter?  i know times are tough, but–as i said when i complained about it on facebook (which did no good.  hmm…perhaps just like the posts about bra colors and purse placements?)–if every person who posted one of those stupid, impersonal messages would have taken the time to donate five or ten bucks instead, that would have raised some awareness. 

but, hey.  i get it.  we’ve got the technology–we just haven’t figured out quite what to do with it yet.  i mean, maybe i’ll start a campaign to make that sort of change.  you know, some little grassroots movement to bring real awareness.  because then i’d be contributing in a way that all this typed ranting doesn’t.  but if i do, it’s going to be for a cause that i haven’t seen enough about this year:

domestic violence awareness.

that’s right.  as if you didn’t have enough to be concerned with, i’m putting my own personal favorite cause out there.  and i suppose it’s important to mention now, because the president is going to address it today, and i’ll be interested to hear what he has to say.

in the meantime, here’s what i have to say:

according to the most recent available statistics for the US:

per year, roughly 192,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer.

annually, approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner.

granted, far more women die from breast cancer, and–cancer being an unpleasant third cousin in our family–i completely respect that. 

but look at the number of women who are assaulted.  of those, a little more than 1200 die.  the rest of them?  they might have to deal with recurrent nightmares.  they might be afraid to go out alone after dark.  they might be uncomfortable with the fact that they still live in a town where they could be easily located.  and even if they are resilient enough to bounce back and move on, begin to trust, and actually, honest to God enjoy life again, they will fight with that fear and deal with that pain for the rest of their lives. 

in the state of south carolina, if you go to a lawyer and request to file for a divorce on the grounds of physical cruelty, you’ll be told that you won’t get it unless you’ve been hospitalized multiple times.

that.  is.  a.  crime.

those of you who know me well know exactly why i’m posting this.  and i don’t think there’s much else that i need to say, so i’ll leave you with this:

if you’re really interested in being an activist for a cause, any cause, this month, then be active about it.  don’t just send a mass text or repost something because it’s trendy or quasi-suggestive or whatever.  donate time or money or old clothes or whatever you have at your disposal to a charity that benefits that cause.  get out there and tell why you support it.  be bold and brave and speak up and out.  that sort of effort is something i can respect.

alright, if i keep typing, i’ll just weep all over my keyboard and rant so much that i won’t get anything else done today.  so, that’s that.

but, just to cover my arse:  if i one day develop breast cancer, then that will be sucky and tragic and i’ll acknowledge that it’s karma getting me back for this blog post.

so, these are two posts that i’d written within the past few weeks that i’d stuck in the *private* folder.  sometimes, i’ll write something, and then i’ll feel the need to sit on it for a while.  it may not have quite the tone i’d like, or i may feel that i’ve overstepped the limits just a bit.  or, in the case of these, i may be unsure of how, exactly, i feel.  because i take a lot of stuff to heart, and so many things frustrate and concern and confuse me.

sometimes, i’ll discuss my posts with family or friends before i actually publish them.  that was the case with these two, and in both instances, it was brought to my attention that my ranty arguments were based on very deep issues.  personal insecurities, past complications, or an honest belief that people should be held to higher standards than can really be expected these days.  whatever the reason, they’ve sat in that folder and on my mind for a while now, and i’m just going to throw them out there in an exercise of (more than likely futile) catharsis.  here you go:

 

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

we’re all, just like…naked, and stuff…such as…maps?

ladies.  ugh.  i can’t even begin to type fast enough to vent this one. 

by now, it’s no secret that the us women’s water polo team (among other celebrated athletes, both male and female) will be appearing in the 2010 espn magazine body issue.  and, regardless of past traumas that have left me with essentially no respect for nudey-posers, even i can admit that it’s fairly un-shocking.  and the photos are relatively tame (although i don’t find them artistically *tasteful*, which is to say that i wouldn’t go check them out in an art exhibit, even if they are in black and white). 

yep.  naked ladies.  there’s nothing new under the sun.

it’s not like i really have that much room to talk, either, i suppose.  i wear a bikini to the beach, and that doesn’t put a whole heap of fabric between my skin and the imagination.  and i’ve been on-stage in my underwear on multiple occasions–although (rocky horror aside; i wore more than just underwear.  i had a boots.  and a cape.) the times i’ve appeared almost au naturale have served a purpose, have punctuated a strong female message.  and i had to strongly defend those times.  which i did.  with strength and elegance.  because i was wise enough to realize that doing something mildly provocative might raise eyebrows and questions.

in a nutshell:  if you have a strong personal reason that is validated by a contribution that betters society, i won’t scoff at your choices.  if, however, you go on major news stations and answer questions with as little aplomb as miss teen south carolina 2007, i am going to freaking rail you.

so, us women’s water polo team, this one is just for you.

this morning, i was minding my own business, getting stuff done–you know, shower, breakfast, laundry, classwork–when i passed through the living room on my way to get a cup of coffee.  and i paused, because a picture (different from the one above.  i couldn’t find the one i actually saw in any size smaller than "ceiling of teenage boy’s bedroom", and have, therefore, left it out of this post) flashed across the t.v. screen, and the voice of some random female news anchor announced that the us women’s water polo team would be up next to talk about this bold decision. 

well, i thought, i’m not super-interested, but i suppose i could hear what they have to say.  i mean, they represent the u.s., right?  they probably have a really cool message about encouraging little girls to be comfortable with themselves, and to be strong.  …right??

**pause**

i should say, now, before i get carried away, that this is a difficult topic for me.  i don’t have anything solid to stand on when it comes to a lifetime of healthy eating habits.  i was a pudgy kid, because i lived hand to mouth.  then, i became a young adult skeleton on revolt, so i can’t preach against ana, mia, or any of the rest of the ednos.  what i can say is this:  right now, americans are ridiculously unhealthy, but there’s this annoying push to "love who you are, no matter what!"  really?  i’m a big fan of promoting self-love and self-respect, but i feel that those efforts should be put toward taking care of yourself.  eating a doughnut once in a while because you like to, but eating healthfully most of the time and getting regular exercise is reasonable.  eating an entire box of krispy kremes, washing it down with a 38 ounce soda, and then falling slowly into a food-coma, while shouting with carefree abandon, "i ate the whole box without regret because i love my curves!" is just plain stupid.  i’m sure i’ll gripe about that again soon, so i won’t get all the way into it here and now, but when at least 68% of your nation is classified as overweight and/or obese, it’s time to make a change.

all that to say this:

1. feel good enough about yourself to take of yourself?  then, by all means, flaunt those curves!
2. don’t take care of yourself, but still self-righteously proclaim your attributes?  then shut up–you’re annoying me.

i grabbed my mug, trudged (i’m still a tad sicky, mind you) back to the living room to catch the interview, and promptly wished that i’d just kept moving.  the news anchor interviewing the team was a woman, and was very obviously expecting the same thing i was:  to get some form of intelligent commentary regarding empowerment.  or the beauty of the female form.  or the newly discovered scientific fact that naked polo players can correctly predict rainfall within 1/72 of an inch 6 years in advance.  i don’t know.  something.  instead, what we got was this:

anchor:  "so, how did you come to the decision, as a team, to pose for this shoot?"

team member:  "well, they asked us if we wanted to do it.  and we were like, ‘um…sure.’ (giggling)."

anchor:  "…did you feel that it brought you together ever more as a team?"

team member:  "well, um, yeah.  i mean, we’re all, like…naked, and stuff.  but, i mean, we wear bathing suits and that’s it, you know, when we’re together, anyway, so, it wasn’t, like, that much…um…different.  you know?"

anchor:  "haha…right…but did it empower you?  as women?"

team member, "well yeah!  because, like, it was really cool for us to show that we have good bodies.  i mean, like, it was nice to be like, ‘look!  polo women have the best bodies around!’ you know?"

team member:  "i think so, yeah.  right?  because, like…it’s really good for girls to see that, like…you don’t have to be all, like, super-skinny and stuff.  you can be, like, all muscular instead.  you know?"

anchor:  "…well…thanks for joining us ladies."

so, according to the women of the us polo team, as long as you’re all bone or all muscle, you can feel good about yourself.

well, crap.  now i have to completely redefine all my personal ideas and concepts.  i mean, how on earth can i live with myself?  i’m neither all bone nor all muscle.  despite the fact that i eat a (mostly) healthy vegan diet (oreos are vegan and delicious.  i eat them.  just not by the sleeve.) and workout for at least an hour a day, i still undeniably, indisputably, possess hips. 

guess i have to take up water polo and pose nude to be legitimate.  i’ll be back to post something when i qualify as a real woman again, but don’t wait around.  this could take a while…

 

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

…a show called glee shouldn’t make you scoff…

but somehow, i just can’t help it.  i’ve tried to be supportive.  i’ve tried to be positive.  i’ve given it a chance.  and i just want to scream.  i’d assumed that glee had dropped the last straw on me when i heard about the rocky horror episode.  i mean…there’s glee.  and then there’s the rocky horror show (note:  i didn’t say "picture", because the original wasn’t a freaking motion picture, it was a legit musical.  as much as i love the movie and hero crush on tim curry every time i watch it, i can be honest.)  and don’t even get me started on who or what they’re doing with the role of magenta (i’ve played the role, and i still stand firm in the opinion that the only person who should play her, ever, is patricia quinn.  sorry, daphne rubin vega–go back to singing about going out tonight, darling.)

all of that is neither here nor there.  my problem at the moment has to do with the glee gq photo shoot.  or, moreover, interview content about how awesome it is to be role-modeling-it-up for the kids these days.  thanks, lea michelle, i’ve always hoped that my nieces would want to be just like this:

dear lea micheele:  jessica simpson called.
she wants her creepy *mouth-hanging-open-at-an-awkward-angle-in-every-photo-of-her* face back.

now, i don’t care what the 20-something-year-old high school kids from glee do.  they can fornicate in a public park at a kiddie cancer walk-a-thon, and i won’t whine–as long as they stand behind their actions.  but when you walk into a photo shoot saying, "i’m a role model!  kids look up to me!" please, for the love of all things logical, don’t be shocked that the media wolves turn around and go, "but you’re not wearing any pants…"  you’re either out to get attention for yourself or you’re out to get attention for others. 

if i walked out into the street wearing a bright yellow, neon lighted sandwich board and screamed, "look at me!  look at me!"  and someone walked up to me and said, "okay, i’m looking at you.  now what?"  i wouldn’t smile humbly, genuflect, and say meekly, "it’s for the children."

there seems to be a pretty big trend in the constant blathering of young women in the public eye about "loving the fact that they’re role models for little girls."  this goes back to my recent ravings about the terrible public presence of the us womens water polo team after they posed nude for espn magazine.  i honestly don’t think that the people who are being fed the line, "i’m a role model!" know what they’re in for. 

if your goal is to encourage little girls to grow up to be comfortable enough with themselves to have a desire to pose in a potentially questionable manner for random mens magazine #7, then be honest about that. 

if your goal is to encourage little girls to grow up with real dreams that don’t potentially demean them or send them into a spiral of unfortunately body-conscious years and bizarrely disordered behaviors, maybe you should try a different approach.

and, guys?  seriously.  stop encouraging this scheisse.

one last thought.  as much as i’m annoyed by the gq cover and the moral confusion of the interview content, i still feel like it’s more artistically tasteful than this steaming pile of sheet music:

jane lynch is the only good thing happening here.
and what does the dog have to do with any of this?

 

**note**

since i wrote this post, dianna agron has actually apologized for the gq shoot, saying that, while it’s the job of parents to make certain such magazines don’t fall into the hands of children, it’s her job as a role model not to promote images that are inconsistent with her own beliefs and values.  she said that she was uncomfortable with the shoot even while she was doing it and should have walked away.  whether she has a super pr rep or she reached that conclusion on her own, i can respect her for coming out about it.

am i the only person who has noticed the dramatic push by the halloween marketing industry to really sell those couples costumes this year?  i know they’ve always existed, but it seems like they’re being showcased as the hottest new item for this halloween, and i just don’t get it.

i guess this is due, in part, to the fact that i’ve never really been interested in dressing as a couple.  i caved to this concept one halloween and ended up wearing a red bed sheet, after spending an hour using liquid latex and tissues to give my date a scarred-up face.  we went as marv and goldie from sin city.  i wasn’t blonde. he was a jerk.  it was a bad year.

as i was browsing the news this morning, i came across an article showcasing this year’s top couples costumes.  which looked a lot like 2008′s top couples costumes to me.  well, in all fairness, avatar hadn’t come out yet–so those costumes weren’t around two years ago.  but…seriously.  i decided to do a little browsing and came to a speedy conclusion.  there’s nothing new under the pre-fabbed sun.  also, an i point out that four of the five articles i’m drawing from here started with the phrase, "halloween is october 31."  really?  no wonder there’s not a lot of thinking outside the costume box here–that’s like the saddest halloween enjoyment ever: 

"honey, doesn’t halloween happen in the fall?" 

"…yeah, that seems right…"

"oh no! how will we ever narrow it down to a month?  much less a day?!"

"i’ve got this under control:  let’s go shop for costumes.  the people at the store will have to know what day it is."

anyway, here are some of, what the industry is touting as, the best selections:

 

the plug and socket, charmingly modeled by a very blasé justin timberlake.

wow.

 

this costume actually only comes with the handcuffs–clothes not included.  i think it would be quite a bit more entertaining without the clothes, which is–perhaps–what the manufacturer intended.  also, it was out of stock–with a note that, "we are unsure if this product will be available again."  special.

what’s wrong with this?  where should i begin?  nevermind.  i think you can manage.  i’ll give you a hint:  start out somewhere around the creepy nipples screenprinted on adam’s chest, there, or the terrible wig they put eve in.

this one is just called batman and sexy robin.  maybe my childhood has escaped me, but i don’t remember robin being a girl.

or, of course, there’s batman and catwoman.  but that leads to this:

really?  this is like skinny jeans:  only three people exist in the whole world who could wear this, and if you think you’re one of them, you should just go ahead and choose something else.

have you seen the commercial where the mom duct tapes the cardboard and flashlights to the kid to make an iron man costume?  yeah.  me too.

any variation on the hippie theme:  if you’re going to do it, go to a goodwill.  don’t bother to spend the forty bucks per costume from a store.  for forty bucks at goodwill, you could go home with costumes, a water bed, and a gently used car.  jeez.

enough said.

i kid you not, the caption for this on the site i got it from was, "why not switch the position up a bit?" and doesn’t he look like he belongs on kids in the hall?

this was an example on one of the sites, and it was listed as, "a super-easy option."  really?  somehow i wouldn’t call the flashy gold tassels on prince charming’s jacket or the bump-it-worthy ‘do and fully-bustled skirt of cinderella *super-easy*.

 

but this has to be my favorite.  it’s not elegantly detailed or wildly inventive, but–as a vegan–it is deliciously ironic.

and that’s that.

 

anyone out there got a good defense for the couples costume?  what imaginative ensemble would you attempt?

this is in response to an article my boyfriend just posted over on facebook.

this picture does not at all accurately portray lex posting a link on facebook today.

the link didn’t go directly to the article for me, so i pulled up one of my own:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07stamps.html

food stamps.  do not spindle.

i thought food stamps were supposed to be for things you needed.  in terms of beverages, the only thing anyone *needs* is water.  although, this is america.  god help us if we take away the people’s milk.  did you know that american children are actually completely incapable of growth and development if they don’t drink milk?  i hear chocolate is the most beneficial -_-

brown cow only has two legs.  probably best not to drink the chocolate milk…

here’s the thing:  mayor bloomberg isn’t banning the sales of soda altogether–though, if he were, i’d applaud it (10 packs of sugar per can, kids.  seriously!).  he’s saying, “if you want soda, you can have it–on your own dime.”  thumbs up!

soda:  now with passion!  and feeling!

i can’t help but feel sardonic when it comes to the whole, “you can’t tell me what i can and can’t eat!” argument.  if i gave you five bucks from my wallet, but didn’t want you to spend it on snack packs, i damn well wouldn’t let you spend it on snack packs.  and why doesn’t anyone ever consider that the government has been regulating food and drink for ages? 

warning:  the green fairy has a terrible hairstylist.

why can’t people in the u.s. buy or import beverages containing wormwood?  because the government says so.  if you want to drink honest-to-goodness absinthe (which is to say: absinthe containing more than 10ppm thujone), you’ll have to take your sugar cube and spoon to spain or the areas of the uk where they allow that sort of debauchery   you may not like it, but if you’re that desperate, you can take your own money, travel to your country of choice, and 130 proof it up all night long…or until you puke bits of your liver, which is a major party foul.

this is about to get completely out of control…

after quite a bit of clicking, i’ve learned that food stamps aren’t at all limited to only the things one would need to survive.  obviously, this article got me all ranty and researchy, so i’ve got a few interesting reads to add:

this one actually lists what is (and isn’t) eligible under the national SNAP program:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

and this is a lengthy, and fascinating, look at the reasoning behind food restrictions (or lack thereof):
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf

thanks for the afternoon of education, lex

/rant

ahh, readers.  it’s good to be back!