Mean Girls (Toddlers)

The "A Group" dominated the social scene. From the tire swing to the jungle gym, the playground was their domain, and no one was going to mess with them.  The "A Group" is what one group of girls called themselves at a Florida school. Seems normal, right? Every school has their social hierarchy and cliques. But, the problem with this "A Group" is that they probably should have named themselves the "G Group." As in, the "Gerber Baby Group." You see, this particular group of girls was composed of preschoolers - girls who were 4 years old yet had already formed a clique, used peer pressure and manipulation, and dominated and bullied their peers.

This is obviously just one isolated incident, but since one of the first studies of pre-adolescent meanness in 2005, all sources point to American children, especially girls, becoming progressively meaner. The causes for this change could be many. Boys have traditionally been thought of as meaner than girls, yet studies in aggression show that, because boys are able to show aggression in socially-ordained and approved ways, such as sports that encourage rough physical contact, they do not manifest their aggression in social interactions with peers as frequently as girls.

Because girls are not given these outlets for aggression, their aggression may manifest itself in their social interactions, showing the same aggression boys do in other areas through their social manipulativeness and bullying. Other experts, especially evolutionary psychologists, also point out that social aggression may have been evolutionarily viable for females in the past, and thus the trait may be heritable.

Regardless, however, it is clear that social modeling plays a part as well. From movies such as Mean Girls to television shows on Disney, the American media is saturated with female role models who get what they want through bullying and meanness. Obviously, these role models need to change, especially with the recent tragic cases of cyber bullying.  The media and entertainment industry need to realize the ramifications of these portrayals, even one that may be as seemingly innocuous (and annoying) as Hannah Montana, and rethink their own complicit roles in this change in our culture.  If children can learn to be mean this early, then maybe they can learn to be nice as well.

No Mo' Loko?

Four Loko, a caffeinated, alcoholic beverage, has been causing a lot of controversy recently. The FDA has placed a moratorium on the beverage, which has been called a "blackout in a can." The FDA moratorium was largely in response to the deaths of several college students, which were linked to consumption of Four Loko. The combination of caffeine and alcohol is the main problem with these beverages, the FDA says - the mixture of a depressant and stimulus proving especially harmful, and in some cases, deadly. 

However, one can only wonder if the FDA's banning of these beverages is taking one step too far. Cigarettes have been linked to deadly diseases for decades, yet the FDA only places a warning label on them - a label they could easily place on caffeinated alcoholic beverages as well. Why is there a difference between the two? Why can't people choose for themselves if they are willing to risk their physical safety for the consumption of this beverage?

I saw a clear resemblance between this ban and the San Francisco ban of toys in McDonald's "Happy Meals," due to the fact that some saw the toys as incentives for children to eat unhealthy food. (CommuniKATE tackles this issue in her blog here.) I can't help but think that both of these situations are cases of the government overstepping its regulatory bounds. People should choose for themselves what they eat, drink, and smoke, and if they want to get a little "Loko" and put their physical well being at risk, then they should be able to. 

Patdown, Shmatdown

A little over three weeks ago, the T.S.A., Transportation Security Administration, declared that it would be enforcing much stricter screening procedures in airport security. With this new procedure, T.S.A. agents are free to screen passengers in a much more forthright manner, with little regard for their personal privacy or personal space. The T.S.A. argues that this policy benefits everyone - obviously, any stricter security measures will make commercial flights that much safer.

Yet, I can't help but think that this new protocol is a bit overboard. Obviously, the T.S.A. has a vested interested in maintaining the safety of commercial flights, but, with the technology available to us today, I wonder if these increased, rather invasive measures are necessary.

This new policy has caused a veritable uproar in the weeks since it has been instated, calling into question the scope of the T.S.A.'s power to invade passenger's privacy. The government, and, by extension, the T.S.A., obviously has less stringent prohibitions when inspecting a commercial airline passenger. One could argue that, by traveling by plane, a commercial passenger therefore sacrifices a certain expectation of privacy - one that is obviously foregone with the new T.S.A. policies.

I am ambivalent about this new policy. One the one hand, anything that makes flying safer, and could prevent another 9/11, could be a step in the right direction. But, on the other hand, how much are we willing to sacrifice our rights for this safety? There has to be a limit to the rights that will be sacrificed in order to ensure a safe and pleasant flight. Ultimately, I think that the line should be drawn here. The new screening procedures are clearly far too invasive, and may, in fact, eventually garner even more resentment towards the T.S.A. and the commercial airline industry in general - resentment that neither of them need. I think that these screening procedures should be halted by the T.S.A.

Politically (In)Correct

The gingerbread-men's-rights-movement had begun. Ever since they had been falsely labeled as "gingerbread people," these oppressed, zesty holiday confections have been striving to reclaim not only their gender identities, but also their dignity. Their protests, redolent with the smell of Christmas and butter cream, were filled with repeated, strident outcries: "Give us back our gender!" Or, at least, "Stop being so politically correct!"

The cookie-men (can I call them that?) have a point. We, as a culture and people, have become far too politically correct, so much so that this frantic effort to avoid, even remotely, offending anyone and everyone has consumed, digested and regurgitated cultural discourse - transforming it into a deformed, cheapened imitation of what it should be. Much like a gingerbread-man with his legs bit off, cultural discourse and debate in America, and, indeed, the globe, has nowhere to go, no means to evolve or transform itself without the lurking, omnipresent force of "political correctness" stifling it.

Take, for example, the litany of instances in recent years in which political correctness has reached new heights of frivolous absurdity. In 2007, Australian recruitment firm Westaff banned its oft-hired troupe of Santa impersonators from saying "ho-ho-ho", insisting that the phrase, which has been an integral part of Ol' Saint Nick's routine for much longer than "ho" has been used as a derogatory term for women, is demeaning and may scare small children. Westaff insisted that its Santa impersonators say "ha-ha-ha," instead. Unfortunately, nobody is laughing.

The political-correctness-craze has not limited itself to just the holiday season, however, as no facet of culture and society has been left unaffected.

From newscasters to movie trailers, political correctness is becoming a form of censorship. Why can't Vince Vaughn call a hybrid car "gay" in a movie trailer? Calling something "gay" has transformed beyond simply denoting sexual orientation in the American vernacular. Vaughn even recognizes this distinction in the film, clarifying his statement that hybrid cars are "gay" by distinguishing the various meanings of the word to, in this case, mean "stupid" rather than homosexual.

Yet, gay advocacy groups, such as GLAAD, are still incensed by the trailer, claiming that it is derogatory and mean.  Whether or not the word "gay" is being used in a derogatory manner in this case should be up to the viewer to decide. (Personally, I thought the scene was funny and touched on some relatable aspects of American culture.)

If Ron Howard had cut the scene from the film, which he ultimately didn't, he would not only be relenting to the zeal of politically-correct-followers but the film would be prevented from possibly stirring a meaningful cultural discussion.

I am often ambivalent about the use of the word "gay" in the modern American dialect, but simply ignoring its use would be neglecting to recognize an aspect of contemporary American culture that should be discussed and considered. If we, as a society, can't portray cultural trends in a film without offending someone, what can we portray?

Similarly, why can't Juan Williams say that he becomes "nervous" and "worried" upon seeing people in "Muslim garb" board his plane? Obviously, his view is fueled by generalizations about Muslims and their connections to terrorist organizations. But, somewhat less obviously, these generalizations are not unfounded - many of the people that have been responsible for terrorist attacks on America and in Europe have been Islamic fundamentalists. Why isn't Williams able to share his views without repercussions?
 

Simple: His views do not mesh with the politically-correct media. (Sick of reading the words politically correct? Because I certainly am.) Simply because Williams' views do not fit this mold, or, dare I say it, run the risk of offending someone, does not mean that he should be silenced or fired. Rather, the consequences of his comments only serve to perpetuate fear in America: the (now-ingrained fear) of offending someone.
 
This fear can only lead to one thing in political and cultural discourse - hesitation.

Diffidence is the last thing one needs in a democratic society. People should be free to express their views, regardless of whether they risk offending someone.

Now, let me clarify. This is not to say that people should have free reign to bully or demean others, as, especially as seen recently, the power of hateful words is often terrifying.
 

Rather, my criticism of political correctness pertains to its role in limiting intelligent, civil public discussion.

 
Clearly, if conforming to the parameters of political correctness is the first thing that one considers before making a comment in today's society, there is something fundamentally wrong with the ways in which we communicate with one another.
 

I think we could all benefit from honesty - the ability to speak candidly and openly with one another without the looming shadow of political correctness hanging over every word.

And, if I won't offend anyone by saying so, I think all of America could use a little thicker skin.

Role Models

      It seems like, in today's age of heightened, omnipresent media scrutiny, you can't win - no matter what you do. Visiting a foreign country in which the drinking age is not an anachronistic relic that only encourages unhealthy drinking habits? Well don't have a beer. 24-years-old? Well, make sure you don't do anything considered sexual, especially if you happen to play a high-school student. (see another blogger's take on the GQ/Glee Photo Scandal here)
       I mean, really. I understand the argument - if someone is going to be in the public sphere, market themselves to impressionable youngsters, and thereby become a role model for said wide-eyed tykes, then they shouldn't do anything outrageous or morally base (otherwise newborns might start mimicking them as soon as they come out of the womb, society will explode, etc., etc.). But, what about when celebrities do things that aren't really that bad? And, furthermore, who decides whether what they do is morally deplorable or not?
     The two examples I used above, Miley Cyrus sipping a beer in Spain, and 24-year-olds posing suggestively in a magazine, are two such instances of the media once again completely sensationalizing situations that really aren't that big of a deal. So what if Glee's stars posed suggestively in GQ? They're 24-year-olds, I think they can make that decision for themselves. And what does it say about our sexually repressed society if there is such a large backlash about a dozen sexually suggestible photos in a magazine? We all know where sexual repression leads.
     I think our society not only needs to reexamine it's priorities and values, but also the ways in which our media tends to be, frankly, a little melodramatic.

Some Takes on Cyber Bullying

Check out this great blog post and Op-Ed about cyber bullying!

Once I Loved a Table

The love affair with my table was a whirlwind.  I mean, after all, who could resist its finely sanded finish, its enchanting, swirling grain, its delicate decorative accents? If only that Human-Table Marriage Act had passed, maybe I would have put a ring on it. I miss that table.

Why did our romance fizzle? What did I do wrong? Why can’t I have my table back?

Why don’t we ask the resident expert on human-inanimate-object-relations, Rebecca Kleefisch, the Republican candidate for Wisconsin lieutenant governor?

Kleefisch, oddly enough, seems possessed by the notion that extending marriage rights to gay couples will naturally lead to the marriage of people to furniture, animals, and assorted knickknacks. In her case, she seemed particularly taken with a table and a “you know, clock.” (Back up off my table, Kleefisch)

Ah, the slippery slope argument. Sorry Kleefisch, I almost forgot about that one, looks like you’ve kept up on your reading. Be sure to highlight the chapter about inane and absurd arguments, okay Becky?

Kleefisch’s statement is just one example of a debate that has been reduced to little more than bombastic, divisive and often-bigoted mud slinging on both sides. The debate about gay marriage in the United States is currently gripping the nation, providing one of the most telling glimpses into the insidious intolerance and ignorance that still lurk in every corner of our nation.

It’s hard to believe that, a little over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments about the legality of Anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. Hopefully, a little over 40 years from now, the citizens of America will look back on the current struggle facing LGBT individuals with the same outrage and disgust.

For now, however, the debate continues.

What then, is the best course of action for those who seek reform?

Social attitudes are evolving. President Obama stated that his attitudes are evolving about gay marriage, a sentiment that I hope many Americans echo. However, they clearly have not changed enough. Conservative political groups are lobbying Iowa voters to vote against the retention of the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who unanimously overturned an Iowa law banning same-sex marriages in April.

Anti-retention leaders argue that the judges had overstepped their bounds, “legislating from the bench” and, as U.S. Representative Steve King states, going “outside the limitations of the Constitution “ and deciding, “that they are going to impose special rights on people.” Call me crazy, but last time I checked, equal isn’t special.

The irony in the arguments of these Anti-retention protestors is so glaring that it’s almost comical. The people of Iowa, in 1998, passed a law that defied the basic tenets of the Constitution. In no way are the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court overstepping their bounds.

Rather, they are doing exactly what their job demands of them, exactly what the judicial oath they took demands of them – protecting the Constitution, even against the whims of the majority.

In this case, what was once the majority opinion in 1998 does not seem to be the majority opinion in Iowa today, or at least, it’s much less disproportionate, anyway.

The irony is that it was the voters, through the legislative process, that abused the American political system by passing a law that fundamentally discriminated against a minority. The judges are simply protecting the Constitution from this abuse by overturning this law.

If true, enduring legal reform is to be established, however, we cannot simply rely on the courts as a means of accomplishing our goals. Rather, the LGBT community must work towards passing comprehensive legislative protections that clearly outline and mandate equal civil rights for LGBT citizens.

Obviously, these solutions will not be without their opponents. Not only will those who are against legalizing basic rights for LGBT citizens object, but also some will argue that, by arguing about these rights in a social forum, we will be undermining their inherent fundamentality.

Yet, the reasoning behind favoring legislative solutions is twofold, however. Not only will legislative reform be less vulnerable to overturn and appeal than judicial rulings, but it will also carry a weight and significance that judicial reform will not.

If a law is passed in a country or state through the legislative branch, it means that a social consensus has been reached, the people have spoken and a majority has voted for political and legal change. Thus, by passing legislative reform, the LGBT community will not only help usher in a tide of social awareness and cultural change, but will also set a concrete legal precedent that will be much less tenuous and open to criticism and overturn.

So, look forward, fellow table-lovers, and do not despair. One day, we will have our time in the sun, and society will look back at these dark times with a disapproving gaze. As for you chair-lovers, you sickos will have to wait your turn.