Dear "liberal" male,
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly
from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I
believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My
theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter,
sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being
discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with
civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed
in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to
prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of
biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically
based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a
person that either cannot be changed or cannot be changed easily.
Throughout
most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women
generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time
before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly
important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it
seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after
humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use
physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that
arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism
that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a
way that is demeaning to men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps makes it
less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve
any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a
woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are
portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability
to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in
popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and
those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which
parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less
and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where
more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early
exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz
especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college
student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to
conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually
has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the
culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on
television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting
impact.
In addition to the frequent incidence of blatant sexism in popular media, I have noticed hypocritical behavior in regards to sexism from people that would believe themselves to be progressive. Many people know that racism and homophobia is wrong (or at least, that the open expression of such sentiments is undesirable) yet negative attitudes towards women continue to be a favorite subject for the casual "comedian". I have often witnessed people that become incensed over hearing a racist joke turn around and make a sexist one in the span of a few hours. Similar phenomena has been studied by Margo Monteith, who explains that her "research points to lax norms in the case of sexist responses, with
people caring little if they have engaged in sexist slip ups" ("Psychology Headlines"). The aim of her study was to find out how people would react when confronted with their own prejudices. The result was that for whatever reason (finding out that people generally had less compunction regarding sexism was not the aim of this particular study) participants reported no feelings of guilt when confronted with their prejudice towards women when compared with their reactions to their attitudes regarding race.
There
are many people like you who would have us believe that sexism is no longer a major
issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have
little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often
experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention
"[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having
ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman"(402). This study made claims that would support a correlation between sexist attitudes and a lack of proper treatment of women living with or otherwise effected by AIDS, as well as claims regarding sexism in general. Clearly this is an
indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this
survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research
regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them.
Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer
Works Cited:
Bowleg, Lisa, and Torsten B. Neilands. "The Effects of Sexism,
Psychological Distress,
and Difficult Sexual Situations on U.S. Women’s
Sexual Risk Behaviors." AIDS
Education and Prevention. By Kyung-Hee Choi. 23rd ed. Vol. 5. N.p.: Guilford,
2011. 397-411. EBSCOhost EBook Collection. Web. 24 May 2013.
Monteith, Margo. "Psychology Headlines." Social Psychology Network. Scott Plous, 21
Mar. 2001. Web. 03 June 2013.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Final Draft)
Dear Modern Sexist of America,
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people like yourself who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them.
Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based upon aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" point of view has prevailed, even after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less frequently to "solve" each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. I feel that this recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people like yourself who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011. I implore you to do your own research regarding sexist attitudes towards more than half of the population, as well as to simply be more observant of your behavior and the behavior of those around you. It is obviously a bizarre state of affairs when a group that is in no way a minority is treated as if they are one. It is wise to assume that even if you are not female, that the equal treatment of women will only serve you, since it would reduce the incidence of anger in these women, making it easier to improve your relationship with them.
Sincerely,
Rachel Meisenheimer
Friday, May 24, 2013
The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Draft 2)
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly
from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I
believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My
theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter,
sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being
discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with
civil rights. The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed
in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to
prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of
biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically
based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based on aspects of a
person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than that of the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are therefore presumed to be aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders that lie in between male and female). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, I believe that this early exposure to traditional gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
There are many people who would have us believe that sexism is no longer an issue. To be blunt, these people are usually male and therefore have little to no experience with the kind of sexism that women often experience. According to an article in AIDS Education & Prevention "[in our sample] more than two thirds reported having ever experienced unfair treatment as a woman". Clearly this is an indicator of a problem that is still relevant to modern society, as this survey was conducted in 2011.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
The Invisibility of Modern Sexism (Rough Draft 1)
In this letter I will attempt to propose a theory that comes mainly from my own experience as a woman in modern society, in a town that I believe falsely claims a "liberal" and "progressive" point of view. My theory is that, for reasons that I will explain further in this letter, sexism is the most "invisible" of the main three "isms" that are being discussed more and more often among those of us that are concerned with civil rights.The main reason that I believe that sexism goes unnoticed in relation to that of racism or homophobia is simple, but difficult to prove: intuitively, we can surmise that sexism may be the oldest form of biologically based oppression. What I mean to say by "biologically based oppression" is that it is oppression that is based on aspects of a person that either can not be changed or can not be changed easily.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders who lie in between). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, this early exposure to gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
Throughout most cultures women have been viewed as the weaker sex. Indeed, women generally have less physical strength than the average male. In a time before technological advances were made, physical strength was certainly important, to fight off animals as well as human predators. However, it seems bizarre to me that this "weaker sex" view has prevailed after humans moved indoors, invented high powered weapons, and began to use physical violence less and less often to "solve"each conflict that arose.
The main aspect of subtle or indirect sexism that I've noticed is displayed often in commercials, and frequently in a way that demeans men as well, albeit to a lesser extent that perhaps is less inherently damaging. For example, most commercials that involve any type of cleaning solution or domestic work of any kind feature a woman and are aimed at female consumers. In these commercials men are portrayed as lazy, filthy, and immature due to their alleged inability to take care of themselves. This recurrent theme in commercials and in popular media is especially damaging to children of both genders (and those genders who lie in between). It shows them that no matter which parent is working (if it is even only one parent; this is becoming less and less commonplace) mom cleans up, while dad relaxes. In a world where more people need house mates and at later points in life, this early exposure to gender roles can cause strife and discord. In Santa Cruz especially, the cost of rent is high. Therefore, the average college student has had a lot of housemates. Renters are often replaced due to conflict. How is this relevant? The answer is that the problem usually has to do with someone refusing to clean up after themselves, and the culprit is usually male. Years of watching his mother and mothers on television pick up after sons and fathers may indeed have a long lasting impact.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Annotated Bibliography
Mills, Sara. Language and Sexism. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2008. EBSCOHost EBook
Collection.
Web. 29 Apr. 2013.
Sara Mills examines the prevalence of sexism that is expressed through modern language. A distinction is made between "overt" sexism and "indirect" sexism. Overtly sexist language occurs when a word is used or a statement is made that is intentionally sexist and oftentimes abusive in nature. Indirect sexism in language occurs when the words or statements made are more "vague". Mills also covers topics that occur when viewing language intellectually, such as common stereotypes, context, hate speech, and ways in which one can challenge sexist language.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. Only Words.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993. Print.
Catharine MacKinnon argues that the oppression of women is not imaginary and that language is what our most basest interactions rely upon. She asserts that the first amendment protects the perpetrators of discriminatory acts, specifically that of pornographic film makers, stating essentially that the creators of such films are rapists.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
What I Would Change About American Society
What I would like to change about the society that I live in is the increasingly noticeable presence of modern sexism and the acceptance of sexism that is apparent to me, even in people that I would normally view as enlightened individuals. It has been my view for many years that sexism against women is the oldest negative "ism" that we have, and thusly, it seems to be the form of social injustice that will be the most difficult to eradicate. What I believe to be the most irritating aspect of sexism is that it is a commonly ignored problem when you compare it to the reaction that people have against racism, and to a lesser extent, homophobia. Racism seems to be the first issue that comes to the minds of many when faced with the subject of the oppression of large groups of people. This is confusing to me, since sexism, racism, and homophobia seem to be different parts of the same ugly animal. All three forms of oppression have one trait in common: people are discriminating against others based on a trait of that can either not be changed or would be extremely difficult to change or hide.
One simply needs to think critically while watching commercials on television to see why anti racist sentiment takes precedence over being against sexism. Take for example, the ad campaign currently being run by the Seven Up/Dr. Pepper company. A few years ago I saw a Dr.Pepper commercial that filled me with a rage so strong that I started laughing hysterically, mostly because I couldn't believe that the concept would make it past the board room that I imagine the creation of commercials takes place in. The product advertised in this commercial is for Dr.Pepper 10, a version of the popular soft drink that has only 10 calories. The commercial is narrated by a masculine figure wearing camouflage who is running around in the forest doing various "manly" things. What is so disturbing about this ad is the dialogue. In the commercial the main character addresses the women that may be watching, asking "enjoying the movie, ladies? Of course not". He implies that all women hate action and the commercial ends with him saying "you can keep your romantic comedies and your girly drinks, we're good. DR. PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN". "What could be more blatantly sexist than this ad?" you may be asking yourself. The answer: the fact that the company made an official facebook page for the drink...and didn't allow people that listed their gender as "female" to play the games on it. Now think for a moment about what the reaction may have been if the excluded group was a ethnic minority. Imagine the words "DR.PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR BLACK PEOPLE" emblazoned on your television screen. I think the reaction would have been a lot different and I don't think that the commercial would still be on the air.
I'd like to mention that this commercial was also sexist towards men, since it reinforced male stereotypes that may not ring true with all males. Many commercials have sexist themes that are aimed at men, especially if the commercial is for a cleaning product or involves shopping or cooking. Women are typically viewed as being superior at domestic duties and better at saving money, while the simple minded men track dirt into the house, spend their savings on birds of prey, and stick entire avocados into blenders. I think it's safe to say that both women and men could do without these heavily enforced stereotypes. The elimination of sexism against either gender (and those genders in between male and female) would make friendships and romantic relationships a lot easier for many reasons, the most obvious being that we could stop accusing one another of taking shots at us for something as small as a difference in genitalia.
One simply needs to think critically while watching commercials on television to see why anti racist sentiment takes precedence over being against sexism. Take for example, the ad campaign currently being run by the Seven Up/Dr. Pepper company. A few years ago I saw a Dr.Pepper commercial that filled me with a rage so strong that I started laughing hysterically, mostly because I couldn't believe that the concept would make it past the board room that I imagine the creation of commercials takes place in. The product advertised in this commercial is for Dr.Pepper 10, a version of the popular soft drink that has only 10 calories. The commercial is narrated by a masculine figure wearing camouflage who is running around in the forest doing various "manly" things. What is so disturbing about this ad is the dialogue. In the commercial the main character addresses the women that may be watching, asking "enjoying the movie, ladies? Of course not". He implies that all women hate action and the commercial ends with him saying "you can keep your romantic comedies and your girly drinks, we're good. DR. PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR WOMEN". "What could be more blatantly sexist than this ad?" you may be asking yourself. The answer: the fact that the company made an official facebook page for the drink...and didn't allow people that listed their gender as "female" to play the games on it. Now think for a moment about what the reaction may have been if the excluded group was a ethnic minority. Imagine the words "DR.PEPPER: IT'S NOT FOR BLACK PEOPLE" emblazoned on your television screen. I think the reaction would have been a lot different and I don't think that the commercial would still be on the air.
I'd like to mention that this commercial was also sexist towards men, since it reinforced male stereotypes that may not ring true with all males. Many commercials have sexist themes that are aimed at men, especially if the commercial is for a cleaning product or involves shopping or cooking. Women are typically viewed as being superior at domestic duties and better at saving money, while the simple minded men track dirt into the house, spend their savings on birds of prey, and stick entire avocados into blenders. I think it's safe to say that both women and men could do without these heavily enforced stereotypes. The elimination of sexism against either gender (and those genders in between male and female) would make friendships and romantic relationships a lot easier for many reasons, the most obvious being that we could stop accusing one another of taking shots at us for something as small as a difference in genitalia.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
RR "Killer Culture" by David Kupelian
What I find the most surprising about this article is how I was able to agree with a few aspects of the author's opinion. He manages to draw even the most atheistic reader in by starting off slow when it comes to making his Christian beliefs blatantly obvious. There is a progression of what I can only refer to as "insanity" that occurs in this article. The author begins by appealing to the reader by portraying MTV and bands like ICP in a negative light. This is something that almost anyone over the age of 18 who has watched MTV or heard ICP's music can get behind. Ask the most average college student if they still think that MTV stands for "music television" and you'll likely receive the same answer: NO. What this author has done is brilliant. He keeps the non-Christian reader from dismissing the article immediately by appealing to their cynicism regarding pop culture.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
The author's ignorance when it comes to subcultures is apparent in many instances. He refers to Satanism on page 656, a religion that almost anyone would find silly, to say the least. The problem is that many people confuse Satanism with legitimate devil worship. True Satanism is worship of one's own ego, and has nothing to do with Satan other than having him as a mascot. When it comes to fashion statements such as piercings, tattoos, and chokers for men, it's as if the author saw each of these fashion trends once or twice and then based his article on those few occurrences. He looked at a few magazine articles written by people in the body modification community and made ill informed guesses as to why they would hang themselves from hooks.
Whether or not these people "rebel" due to having issues with their parents is none of Kupelian's concern. He suffers from the same "disease" that many hardcore Christians suffer from. He has an inability to tolerate what is going on in the privacy of other people's homes. In the beginning of the article Kupelian says "a fun loving and thoroughly decent kid, the cousin didn't have a mean bone in his body. One little thing, though. He wore a choker around his neck"(647). He's describing a child who had an effect upon his own son, who wanted to dress like him afterwards. He then gives his son a lecture about the necklace and it's various "negative" connotations. Not only does the author care about what strangers wear or do, but he assigns negative traits to a child he described as "decent". The fact that his son wanted to emulate a "decent" child should have been acceptable to him despite his taste in clothing. Instead he instilled a hatred of women in his son (because wearing "girl" clothing is "bad") and sent him this message: it doesn't matter if you're a good person. Wearing "weird" clothing trumps this and makes you a "sinner". Now that's what I call great parenting.
Kupelian, David. The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-experts
Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom. Nashville, TN: WND, 2005. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)