Long-time Sloppists have noticed that I haven't posted regularly in a long time. I had considered this a mere personal failing: a source of disappointment in myself, to be sure, but a victimless crime at worst. Last night, I realized I was wrong. I came face to face with the face of Solipsist Nation abandoned: a reader--perhaps my ONLY reader--who had come to rely on YNSHC to bring a little joy into his apparently insufficiently joyous life, and whom I had so cavalierly abandoned out of some sense of entitlement--entitlement to rest, to relaxation, to the right to plunge myself into a beer-fueled alcoholic stupor on a regular basis! Who did I think I was?!? So, to this Fanatical Follower of Solipsist, I simply say, I shall strive to do better.
Speaking of entitlement, I've spent the last day or so pondering this story in yesterday's paper, about a semi-common occurrence on airplanes. Apparently, some ultra-Orthodox Jews refuse to sit next to women on airplanes, for fear that they may accidentally come into contact with members of the opposite sex. Despite the fact that a prominent Orthodox rabbi has given dispensation for whatever incidental contact might occur, a number of Hasidim feel they would rather not chance it. As you can imagine, though, problems arise when women refuse to relocate to accommodate the--let's face it--medieval strictures of their fellow travelers.
Those of you who follow me on Facebook know that I proposed a simple solution: If the idea of potentially finding himself seated next to a woman so fills a Hasidic gentleman with fear, then all he needs to do to avoid the situation is purchase an extra seat on the plane. This comment of mine generated a number of comments--tongues more or less planted in cheeks--about the unlikelihood of Jews ponying up the cash for two seats (it should be noted that these comments all came from fellow Jews). But the point, of course, is social not financial. If these folks want to avail themselves of the conveniences of modern society (like airplanes), then they are simply going to have to accept the conventions of modern society (like the fundamental equality of the sexes--and let's not get started on THAT; that's a topic for another day).
Ultimately, I don't really have a problem with the Orthodox desire to maintain a separation of the sexes: If that's what they believe, that's what they believe. The issue I find offensive is that the airlines and/or the other passengers should go out of their way to accommodate them. I wouldn't have an issue with a Hasidic gentleman going up to another passenger--and for all I know, this happens--and saying politely something to the effect of, "Excuse me, Sir/Madam, I'm seated over in ___, but the seat next to me is occupied by a lady, and my religion prevents me from sitting next to her. I was wondering if you would be willing to trade seats with me?"
I'm sure he'd find a taker. Hell, what does the Hasid-proximate lady look like? Maybe I'll trade seats. After all, I'm single now. Think of the possibilities!
"What was that all about?"
"Oh, his religion forbids him from sitting next to beautiful women."
"Really?"
"Well, strictly speaking, his religion prevents him from sitting next to any women. I threw in the beautiful part."
"Oh, Solipsist!"
Cha-ching! Mile-high-club! I love Judaism!
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
It's a Barbie World (A Brief Post)
Cheers! to Mattel for shattering gender stereotypes with its introduction of a construction-themed "Barbie" set.
Jeers! for their inclusion of a wolf-whistling Ken doll in a hardhat exposing himself (such as he can) to Barbie.
I don't know what they were thinking!
Jeers! for their inclusion of a wolf-whistling Ken doll in a hardhat exposing himself (such as he can) to Barbie.
I don't know what they were thinking!
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Mo' Binders, Mo' Problems
I'm sorry I missed the debate last night. I was, however, glad to hear that President Obama mopped the floor with his GOP challenger. Admittedly, that's a partisan interpretation based on second-hand sources, but no matter how one spins the result, it sounds like Barack sure showed up last night.
Of course, all that anyone's talking about is Bindergate, Mitt Romney's infelicitous attempt to shore up the women's vote. As I'm sure you've all heard by now, Mittens portrayed himself as a champion of women's equal opportunity because, as governor of Massachusetts, he questioned why his staff couldn't find qualified women to apply for senior governmental positions. He requested--nay, demanded!--that aggressive steps be taken! And last night he bragged about compiling "binders full of women." And a meme was born!
I've spent an inordinate amount of time today trying to determine whether this remark was actually offensive. I'm willing to give Mittens the benefit of the doubt here: I'll assume he wasn't being sexist and may, indeed, have relatively--relatively! Remember, the man's in the same party as Rick Santorum--mainstream sttitudes towards women in the workplace. I think that, unlike his infamous "47%" comment--which came as part of a lengthy discussion and thus probably reflects his true feelings toward the less fortunate--this "binders" remark truly was just bad phrasing: It says less about Romney's possible misogyny than it does about his utter out-of-touchness: For him, women--people in general--are just so many data points, so many quantifiable inputs to be color-coded and tabulated and assessed in terms of their bottom-line value. Romney may or may not be a sexist, but this comment plays perfectly into the caricature of him as cold-hearted business mogul who evaluates--and values--people only insofar as they contribute to his agenda.
At times like these, I think of my Republican friends--I must have some: I'm a very likable guy. How did they react when Romney uttered the "binders full of women" line? Did they cringe, realizing this would be the take-away from the whole debate? Were they perhaps fixated on some equal and opposite gaffe committed by President Obama (a gaffe pitched to a dog-whistle-like frequency that only Republicans can hear)? Or do they see nothing wrong with it?
I don't say that out of a sense of condemnation, either. I think of my reaction when then-Senator Obama made his infamous "gaffe" during the 2008 election cycle, about how certain people "cling to guns and religion" out of a sense of fear--Obama's own "47%" moment, if you will. Many expressed outrage at the elitism implied by the words, but, frankly, I remember thinking, "What's the big deal? He's basically right."
We've reached a point in the election cycle, nearly--mercifully--over, when for the most part only the most egregious of blunders will have a serious effect on the race. Those of us gleefully bantering about Mitt Romney's latest faux pas are for the most part people who would in no way have considered voting for him anyway. I can't wait for the day when Americans can put all this unpleasantness behind us and return to simpler, more universal pleasures, like hating on Canadians.
Of course, all that anyone's talking about is Bindergate, Mitt Romney's infelicitous attempt to shore up the women's vote. As I'm sure you've all heard by now, Mittens portrayed himself as a champion of women's equal opportunity because, as governor of Massachusetts, he questioned why his staff couldn't find qualified women to apply for senior governmental positions. He requested--nay, demanded!--that aggressive steps be taken! And last night he bragged about compiling "binders full of women." And a meme was born!
Binders are the new Big Bird.
I've spent an inordinate amount of time today trying to determine whether this remark was actually offensive. I'm willing to give Mittens the benefit of the doubt here: I'll assume he wasn't being sexist and may, indeed, have relatively--relatively! Remember, the man's in the same party as Rick Santorum--mainstream sttitudes towards women in the workplace. I think that, unlike his infamous "47%" comment--which came as part of a lengthy discussion and thus probably reflects his true feelings toward the less fortunate--this "binders" remark truly was just bad phrasing: It says less about Romney's possible misogyny than it does about his utter out-of-touchness: For him, women--people in general--are just so many data points, so many quantifiable inputs to be color-coded and tabulated and assessed in terms of their bottom-line value. Romney may or may not be a sexist, but this comment plays perfectly into the caricature of him as cold-hearted business mogul who evaluates--and values--people only insofar as they contribute to his agenda.
At times like these, I think of my Republican friends--I must have some: I'm a very likable guy. How did they react when Romney uttered the "binders full of women" line? Did they cringe, realizing this would be the take-away from the whole debate? Were they perhaps fixated on some equal and opposite gaffe committed by President Obama (a gaffe pitched to a dog-whistle-like frequency that only Republicans can hear)? Or do they see nothing wrong with it?
I don't say that out of a sense of condemnation, either. I think of my reaction when then-Senator Obama made his infamous "gaffe" during the 2008 election cycle, about how certain people "cling to guns and religion" out of a sense of fear--Obama's own "47%" moment, if you will. Many expressed outrage at the elitism implied by the words, but, frankly, I remember thinking, "What's the big deal? He's basically right."
We've reached a point in the election cycle, nearly--mercifully--over, when for the most part only the most egregious of blunders will have a serious effect on the race. Those of us gleefully bantering about Mitt Romney's latest faux pas are for the most part people who would in no way have considered voting for him anyway. I can't wait for the day when Americans can put all this unpleasantness behind us and return to simpler, more universal pleasures, like hating on Canadians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)