Religion

Despite being raised in a fairly Christian environment to some degree or another, and a brief foray into that evangelical Christian youth group... thing... I am not a religious person. I don't identify with any particular mainstream religion or any of the "fringe" religions that some of my peers (20-something, middle-class white people) find appealing (why are all the 20-something white kids in Uptown Buddhist? I'm skeptical). I have tried, because I thought that it was important for me to do so, and I have come out of those experiences with more understanding, but not with any particular god or belief system winning me over.

Because of my lack of religious or spiritual belief or dedication, I often find jokes made at the expense of various religions and those who practice them quite funny. A couple feminist blogs recently linked to a video of a group of rapping Christians promoting the "Christian Side Hug," as opposed to a normal hug which may accidentally arouse someone if they realize they're touching someone's breasts or crotch through several layers of clothing.

Ok, that's really hilarious. And the video is certainly making its rounds, as I received my very own Christian Side Hug on Thanksgiving when at imnotme's mom's house.

You know what else is hilarious?

-Muslim men think that when they die, they'll be greeted by a large number of their very own virgins to deflower in heaven;

-Jews believe that women are impure when menstruating;

-Catholics believe that if they tell a robed man behind a cage all the bad things they did, they are free from consequence;

-Muslim women believe they need to cover their hair, and sometimes their whole head, because they should be more modest than men;

-Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe that a person's natural inclination toward same-sex romantic relations are evil;

-Many polytheistic religions like Hinduism believe that there are several deities controlling their environment and lives.

(I'm obviously making vast generalizations.)

See, all religious people, regardless of which religion they practice, believe in some weird stuff. The fact that Christians are currently quite influential in Western society doesn't make that untrue. Can we please stop pretending that we can only make fun of powerful things, people, religions, ethnicities, companies, or belief systems?

Also, sometimes women do dumb stuff, and sometimes Muslims do dumb stuff, and sometimes Asians do dumb stuff. If we feel the need to call people out on their dumb decisions or make fun of their weird behaviors, can we please stop pretending that only certain groups get to be held accountable for their idiocy? Geez.

The lament above came from the comment thread over at the Feministe post, the one making fun of the Christian Side-Huggers. Of course that's hilarious; what isn't hilarious about a bunch of kids rapping about how you should leave room for the Holy Spirit in your hug? Der. But when I brought up the fact that the post was written solely for the purpose of making fun of Christians, especially young Christians, and that this would never fly if the object was Islam or Judaism or any other religion, people jumped all over me about how it's okay to do that when the object of the ridicule is an oppressive group, and that if another group is oppressed, they are basically untouchable when it comes to parodying or laughing at their beliefs or behaviors.

I don't believe that just because a group can reasonably claim to be oppressed in one particular society, that they are somehow freed of any critique of their choices and behaviors. I do not believe that criticizing oppressive practices or negative behaviors prevalent in an oppressed group further oppresses said group. Ignoring negative qualities because of a perceived disadvantages fosters acceptance of negative and damaging behaviors. Allowing some people or groups to be absolved of responsibility encourages negativity in all senses to further prevail.

Sorry, but I am of the belief that if one makes a choice, it's subject to criticism and judgment. While it's always a good idea to practice sensitivity and not be a jerk, if the behavior or attribute in question is not an inherent one, then it's open to be mocked. For example, I would not make fun of someone for being blind, but I would make fun of someone for wearing hipster glasses.

Critical-thinking caps, people! Don't take them off just because you're in the company of other progressive-minded folks!

I've got some misogynistic tendencies...

Yup, I sure do. I also try very hard to not let those prejudices affect the way that I treat fellow human beings who happen to have a different pair of chromosomes than I do.  Why? Because I am pretty convinced that there is an intrinsic value to every human being that demands respect and because I am also pretty convinced of something I refer to as "meritocracy". I want to assess a person by their character not by circumstances that are outside their control.

I find it kind of amusing that my friend April invited me to contribute to her feminist blog, because I am not particularly well versed in feminist theory. I mean I've read a little bit. Bell Hooks is a notable favorite. Regardless, I am not convinced I have anything credible or substantive to add. I guess we'll find out.

The one impression that I do have from the reading I have done in the feminist blogosphere is that there is a lot of discussion of institutions, theory, and the abstract. "Can you believe the subtle misogyny in this commerical for a washer and dryer?" The bulk of this is valid, important discussion. Though I'd like to read more about base, human interaction. The concrete changes we see happening in people's lives.

Where do I read about that? Where do I learn to do more of that? Maybe I just haven't taken enough initiative to read more of whats out there. Feel free to tell me that as well.

 

N

Religions are funny.

Despite being raised in a fairly Christian environment to some degree or another, and a brief foray into that evangelical Christian youth group... thing... I am not a religious person. I don't identify with any particular mainstream religion or any of the "fringe" religions that some of my peers (20-something, middle-class white people) find appealing (why are all the 20-something white kids in Uptown Buddhist? I'm skeptical). I have tried, because I thought that it was important for me to do so, and I have come out of those experiences with more understanding, but not with any particular god or belief system winning me over.

Because of my lack of religious or spiritual belief or dedication, I often find jokes made at the expense of various religions and those who practice them quite funny. A couple feminist blogs recently linked to a video of a group of rapping Christians promoting the "Christian Side Hug," as opposed to a normal hug which may accidentally arouse someone if they realize they're touching someone's breasts or crotch through several layers of clothing.

Ok, that's really hilarious. And the video is certainly making its rounds, as I received my very own Christian Side Hug on Thanksgiving when at imnotme's mom's house.

You know what else is hilarious?

-Muslim men think that when they die, they'll be greeted by a large number of their very own virgins to deflower in heaven;
-Jews believe that women are impure when menstruating;
-Catholics believe that if they tell a robed man behind a cage all the bad things they did, they are free from consequence;
-Muslim women believe they need to cover their hair, and sometimes their whole head, because they should be more modest than men;
-Muslims, Jews, and Christians believe that a person's natural inclination toward same-sex romantic relations are evil;
-Many polytheistic religions like Hinduism believe that there are several deities controlling their environment and lives.

(I'm obviously making vast generalizations.)

See, all religious people, regardless of which religion they practice, believe in some weird stuff. The fact that Christians are currently quite influential in Western society doesn't make that untrue. Can we please stop pretending that we can only make fun of powerful things, people, religions, ethnicities, companies, or belief systems?

Also, sometimes women do dumb stuff, and sometimes Muslims do dumb stuff, and sometimes Asians do dumb stuff. If we feel the need to call people out on their dumb decisions or make fun of their weird behaviors, can we please stop pretending that only certain groups get to be held accountable for their idiocy? Geez.

The lament above came from the comment thread over at the Feministe post, the one making fun of the Christian Side-Huggers. Of course that's hilarious; what isn't hilarious about a bunch of kids rapping about how you should leave room for the Holy Spirit in your hug? Der. But when I brought up the fact that the post was written solely for the purpose of making fun of Christians, especially young Christians, and that this would never fly if the object was Islam or Judaism or any other religion, people jumped all over me about how it's okay to do that when the object of the ridicule is an oppressive group, and that if another group is oppressed, they are basically untouchable when it comes to parodying or laughing at their beliefs or behaviors.

I don't believe that just because a group can reasonably claim to be oppressed in one particular society, that they are somehow freed of any critique of their choices and behaviors. I do not believe that criticizing oppressive practices or negative behaviors prevalent in an oppressed group further oppresses said group. Ignoring negative qualities because of a perceived disadvantages fosters acceptance of negative and damaging behaviors. Allowing some people or groups to be absolved of responsibility encourages negativity in all senses to further prevail.

Sorry, but I am of the belief that if one makes a choice, it's subject to criticism and judgment. While it's always a good idea to practice sensitivity and not be a jerk, if the behavior or attribute in question is not an inherent one, then it's open to be mocked. For example, I would not make fun of someone for being blind, but I would make fun of someone for wearing hipster glasses.

Critical-thinking caps, people! Don't take them off just because you're in the company of other progressive-minded folks!

Double-standard?

Who's 17? Edward is a 108-year-old vampire, and the actor who plays him is 23.

...Just sayin'.

...hello?

It would seem that I have been thrust into the blogosphere by my good friend April. I thought that I should write a little introductory post. I'm N... a white guy in my mid-late twenties who works in a reasonably successful (whatever that means) career, taking some night classes in pursuit of an undergraduate degree (Hopefully to also learn something?), and trying to be a conscientious human being.

In the context of this blog, a feminist blog focusing on ethics and ecological responsibility, I hope to have conversations with many of you regarding practical ways to subvert unjust, particularly sexist, institutions and related prejudice. I’m pretty good at the armchair philosophy, the theory, and the abstract. It is the application of those lofty ideals I have a hard time with.

I'm sure my various English teachers would cringe at that run-on sentence so I am going to stop before I do further disservice to the English language. I hope you all enjoy what I write and that we learn from each other.

Till next,
N

New contributors

by April

As you may have noticed, I'm no longer the only writer at this site. Danny has agreed to become a regular contributor to EthEcoFem, and wrote a piece last week about how to define oneself in the context of sexuality and curiousity in relation to sexual experience. Also soon to join the blog's contributors is N, much to my happiness. I hope you'll keep an eye out for future posts by Danny and N.

Bloody Mary Weekend

Yesterday's Bloody Mary was "enjoyed" at Whitey's. It was too bright, too strong, and too small.

D.

Today's Bloody Mary was enjoyed at Eli's, a small bar/restaurant downtown. I watched her make it, and was a little afraid: I saw the glass fill with vodka, and then watched the minuscule splash of Bloody Mary mix slowly fall over the ice cubes, appearing to barely fill the glass with flavor. I used my straw to mix it up a bit, and took a sip.

Heavenly!!

Thick, peppery goodness, and not a touch too strong. Garnished with a pickle spear, two green olives, and a lime, it was the perfect amount of thick, rich flavor and bright, tart accessories.

A+!

So A+ in fact, that I had two, so forgive my excitement.

In addition to their delicious Bloody Mary(s), I was hungry, so I ordered their steak & eggs. What came to me from the kitchen was the smallest piece of meat that anyone's ever served me with a straight face, but it didn't matter-- it was filet mignon, cooked to perfection (I prefer my meat to resemble a crusty hockey puck) and utterly delicious.

I think I found a new favorite place.

Let's talk about gay marriage

...I mean, why not?

when I consider what I want to write about in a blog post, I never consider my options to include gay marriage, abortion, or the death penalty (the Big Three), because... well, everyone has already made every argument known to humankind for or against all of them. We've all heard it, we've all chosen a "side." They're all tired subjects these days, when it comes to social commentary. But, who cares. Today, I'm thinking about gay marriage. It's on my mind, so I shall write:

Why does anyone oppose the idea of two men or two women getting married to one another? The only opponents thus far seem to be opposed for religious reasons. If one is concerned that gay marriage would oppose their religious beliefs, then there is a really reasonable solution to that: if you're a heterosexual religious person, then simply don't elect to marry a person of the same sex. If you're a religious official, do not elect to marry gay couples. I'm fairly certain that there's some part of our Constitution that says something along the lines of "freedom of religion" or something like that.

All right, sarcasm aside, the part of the First Amendment that discusses religion says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Which means that Congress cannot establish or maintain a religious structure to dictate the laws and lives of US citizens, and/because as US citizens, we all have the right to religious freedom and expression as we see fit. No religion shall be considered dominant or influential in our law making, and no law shall be passed that prohibits or discourages people from expressing their religious beliefs.

Now, luckily for Christians in the US, church officials are legally allowed to perform marriages. This means that you can go to the county government office like your atheist or agnostic friends, get your marriage license, and have your priest, pastor, imam, or whomever, perform the marriage, and it becomes official, according to secular US law. Luckily for non-Christian or non-religious people, there is also the option of a Justice of the Peace or otherwise secularly ordained officiant to legally marry you. In fact, it's really astonishingly easy to become legally allowed to marry people.

What I understand is that a Christian person may feel that a gay couple being married is a sin in the eyes of their god. This is understandable, and not something I'm interested in arguing about with someone who is religious. I'm not trying to debunk anyone's (usually) harmless belief systems. However, if one is married by a religious official, the marriage is blessed by God, and therefore a holy matrimony. If your local justice of the peace marries two women tomorrow afternoon, well, what does that have to do with anything? If it were a heterosexual couple being married by a JOP, you wouldn't consider it to be a holy matrimony, either, right? That would presumably be because a JOP isn't giving God's blessing to your marriage. A JOP is simply making a domestic partnership into a legally binding contract. Where are the objections to heterosexual couples being married by secular institutions? I have heard of absolutely zero complaints about non-religious heterosexual couples being married by a judge, or their rights as married people.

What I truly don't understand is why a heterosexual Christian person would find a gay marriage threatening. It doesn't change the meaning of their marriage in the eyes of God.

If heterosexual religious people object to gay marriage within their church or religious institutions, then I say, more power to them. Have at it. Discriminate all you want. Why? Because your religious beliefs don't have an effect on the secular lives of those around you. At least, they shouldn't. Likewise, allowing homosexual people to marry someone of the same sex has no impact on religious people.

I understand the implications of saying that I believe that religious institutions have the right to be discriminatory in their allowance of certain ceremonial events. It would be discriminating against gay Christians, for one. But... well, if I don't want someone's religion to dictate my life, then I'm also not willing to demand that secular practices dictate the lives of religious people in a way that undermines or negates their religious beliefs. So, men can marry men and women can marry women legally, and Christian churches (and other non-Christian religions) can decide who they want to marry under the guidelines of their religion. Seems simple enough, right? They can all be legal under US law, so... what's the problem again?

Furthermore, is there anyone out there who is not religious, Christian or otherwise, who believes that gay people should not have the right to marry a person of the same sex? I haven't heard of any.

It seems so utterly simplistic, and I can't wrap my mind around what the actual problem is. The religious right seems to think that their interpretation of what certain people said that their god said should be universal law, but that's obviously incorrect in the context of our legal system and the founding of our nation, so where is the disconnect? Why are we stalling a civil rights issue over a group's beliefs, when the solution is to simply... you know, continue separating church and state?

It's not the same

For some reason, I've heard and read a lot lately from men who think that their girlfriends yelling at them is identical to a woman's male significant other physically assaulting her.

Where did this idea come from?

Being yelled at sucks. Being yelled at repeatedly and systematically by your significant other already has a name: verbal and/or emotional abuse. But it is not the same as being physically assaulted.

If your girlfriend or wife is screaming at you for god-knows-what, in front of the kids, so all the neighbors can hear, that's pretty terrible. If this happens often, you should probably reconsider your relationship with her. If you stay, I can understand the reasons why you might feel compelled to do so. Perhaps you are afraid for the kids, maybe your life is so entwined with hers, maybe for decades, that you just can't muster the energy to leave. Maybe she's psychologically abusive and takes advantage of you to the point where you feel as though you're nothing without her. You know, typical signs of abuse. Mental abuse. Verbal abuse. Psychological abuse.

All of those kinds of abuse are terrible and should most certainly not occur within an intimate relationship. They all fall under the umbrella of "abusive behavior."

But it is not the same as physical abuse.

Comparing the two is inaccurate. I can be beaten to death. I cannot be yelled at to death. I can leave the room, the house, the city, if I'm being yelled at. I cannot leave the house if I'm physically injured to the point of not being able to move. And if that happens? I'm at the mercy of my abuser. At that point, my life is potentially in danger.

Do we typically tend to downplay the damaging effects of verbal assault and emotional abuse at the hands of women, and the wounds inflicted on male victims of these types of abuse? I'm sure we do. Of course that's not right. It's also not the point, though. The point is that physical assault and verbal assault are not the same.

Some might say that repeated emotional abuse can lead the victim to self-harm and/or suicide, arguing that emotional abuse does cause physical injury or even death. Of course it's true that some victims may be emotionally or psychologically beaten down to the point that they feel ending their life is the only option. But, ultimately, suicide is the choice of the person committing it.

Anyway, if I'm missing something, by all means, let me know. But I'm quite certain that it is just not the same.

Bloody Mary Sunday

Today's Bloody Mary was enjoyed at The Bulldog Uptown. It was thick, creamy, smooth, and very tomato-ey. Garnishments included two green olives and a pickle. Too tomato-ey for my taste. Almost sweet, even. Flavor was quite bright, which isn't what I generally expect from a bloody. I want spice and pepper. Unidentifiable beer back. Probably a light beer of some kind. Can't quite place it. The rim salt was barely there.

Drinkable, but not awesome. Too dull for me.

Overall grade: C.

So does that make me straight curious as well?

Hey folks this is Danny (aka sanguinedream) from Danny's Corner and I've been invited to become a contributor here and I just could not refuse.

Since Cacophonies seems to be up for a wide range of topics I'm gonna go left field for a bit and talk about sexuality for my introduction.

I'm sure you are more than likely familiar with the term "bi-curious" right? If not it refers to one is generally identifies as heterosexual or homosexual but has curiosities about romantic or sexual activities with people of the same (if you're heterosexual) or opposite (if you're homosexual) gender. So to be curious about romance or sex of the orientation opposite of what you identify with there is the implication that you have never done such things before. So what if you have no sexual or romantic experience?

I've called myself heterosexual for the vast majority of my life. Checking women out. Paying attention to women in porn (but not lesbian porn but that is another story for another day). Fantasizing about women. Par for the course for a heterosexual man (or homosexual woman) right? However about five years ago I opened up to thoughts about homosexuality. Checking men out. Paying attention to men in porn. Fantasizing about men. Par for the course for a homosexual men (or heterosexual woman) right?

Thing is I have no experience in either one.

So based on the fact that I have no experience in heterosexual or homosexual romance/sex does that mean that I'm in some weird limbo in which I'm straight curious and gay curious at the same time? Or can I just call it simply curious since without any experience I'm still at the starting point of discovering my sexuality? Just wondering.

Bloody Mary Weekend!

The plan for Saturday was to go to The Uptown Bar & Cafe for one last breakfast & Bloody Mary (apparently, they're award-winning) before they closed down. An added bonus to their Bloodys is that you get to take home the glass it comes in. My glasses from the Uptown now outnumber the set I got from Target. Their bloody's were simple, yet satisfying. Unfortunately, we found that the Uptown had already closed. Here's to hoping they find themselves a new location.

Change of plans. Jesse and I instead opted for breakfast at Bryant Lake Bowl. BLB offers a choice of four different Bloody Marys, each one unique and awesome and totally worth trying. I've had two of theirs before, but this time opted to try one I hadn't yet sampled: Amanda's Rock 'n' Roller. It was advertised as containing mild green Tobasco and some other ingredients I don't quite remember being listed, and combined with the name, looked like it would be spicy and savory.

Along the rim was not a celery salt or pepper concoction, but rather... sea salt! Pure sea salt. Now, I am quite a lover of all things sodium-infused (much to my blood pressure's dismay), but this could have possibly been a bit too much. I solved this problem by brushing the salt chunks into the drink. They dissolved and it was no longer overwhelming.

What made this Bloody Mary especially unique was the abundant use of garlic. When I say abundant, I mean that I was drinking alcoholic, tomato-flavored garlic. A full glass of it. There were garlic chunks in the drink itself, and the garnish of two green olives were stuffed with garlic. The pickle spear, thankfully, lacked additional garlic flavoring.

The consistency was medium-to-thin, which isn't usually my favorite. I added more Tobasco, as usual, because nothing can ever be too spicy (or salty).

I am not 100% positive about which beer was used for the beer back, but based on the location (Minneapolis hipster headquarters) and the bland, thin taste, I think I'm safe in assuming that it was PBR.

All in all, I'd rate Saturday's Bloody Mary a solid B. As far as my personal preferences are concerned, it was a C, but I think that people who are bigger fans of garlic would love it. My mom, for example, would probably ask for another tablespoon or so to add to it. (Love you, Mom, and your spaghetti-flavored garlic!)

Saturday's Bloody Mary was enjoyed with the above-referenced Mom at Mayslack's. I've had their Bloody Marys a few times, and always thoroughly enjoy them. They have one standard Bloody Mary that includes a slew of garnishes, including: Pickle spear, two large green olives, a lime, and a beef stick. The beef stick, while not the awesomest quality meat ever, appears to be included as part of their inaccurate slogan, "Nobody Beats Mayslack's Meat!" I say inaccurate because all of the meat that I've had there, with the exception of their bacon, is chewy and fatty and gross.

Anyway.

The consistency of the Bloody Mary is quite thick, and the rim is covered in what seems to be a mix of salt-and-pepper spices and other unidentifiable (but delicious and complementary) spices. The beer back is also unidentifiable to my taste buds, but it is presumably some cheap tap beer. Not PBR, either way. Drinkable, nonetheless.

Overall rating: Solid A. I love how thick it is, I like the beef stick, even though it's not fabulous, and the mix is savory and a little spicy.

Oh, and the omelet I had there was amazing and the jalapenos were actually spicy, which is a rare thing in these wimpy Northern parts.

Anyone sample Bloody Marys at either of these places? How do you like them?

"Doofy Husbands"

Sarah Haskins of Target Women fame has a video up about Doofy Husbands. As usual, it is absolutely hilarious. And, it touches on an interesting figure in pop culture: The incompetent, unintelligent, overweight man, who can hardly manage his own life without the help of his overly-responsible and under-appreciated wife. Danny wrote a recent post about fatphobia directed at fat men in particular that touches on this current trend (a long-lasting one too, I might add) in pop culture and every day life.

Some might find it questionable how this particular trend-- the one that plays on stereotypes and not only perpetuates, but encourages the idea that men are stupid and worthless-- has anything to do with advertisements that market to women in a way that perpetuates and encourages poor body image and low self esteem (which is the basis for Target Women).

Well, that's because it kind of doesn't have anything to do with women-- other than the fact that without women, these men would probably be dead or living in a box somewhere. Or so we're led to believe.

There's the standard argument that this portrayal is rooted in misogyny. How could it be, for this particular trend? Well, women are supposed to work extra hard and accept their husbands for just what they are... or, they don't mind being under-appreciated... or... no, I can't find an actual argument that makes any kind of sense. I actually thought I was going to be able to.

Anyway, needless to say, I disagree. But the reason why I disagree is not only because the trend is actually something negative about men, and not having much of anything to do with women, it is overshadowed by what I think is more relevant:

It seems as though the writers of these commercials and television shows like King of Queens or Home Improvement (among so many countless others) are writing these female characters as Smart & Capable Woman vs. Slow & Incompetent Man in order to make up for all of the past roles women were given where they were constantly portrayed as weak, helpless, and usually unintelligent. Their version of responding to the feminist movement. Instead of writing leading male and female characters who both have strengths and weaknesses that are equally celebrated and also made fun of in the name of humor, they do the opposite and create an illusion that women are actually the rulers of the world, only in our own little under-appreciated and uncompensated mini-world where the men actually end up getting all the credit, and we stand back, proud of ourselves, shaking our heads and chuckling about the way it all turned out.

It's not helping either gender with breaking out of harmful stereotypes and unrealistic expectations based on our gender. It's only creating new ones where women rule the world, and men are just humble, dumb servants. It obfuscates the point, which is that we should all be treated equally and not judged on our gender alone. Women don't need overcompensation for past oppressive media representations. We don't need to switch roles and have power instead. And when it comes to media, we just need to be accurately and respectfully portrayed.

Really, that's all.

Painting men to be lazy, fat idiots, homely, and otherwise undesirable doesn't do any justice to anyone. It takes the negative representation off of women and places it, instead, on men. The goal of feminism is not for women to someday take over the world; it's to fight for the equality of men and women, in a society where women are currently, in general, at a disadvantage to men.

Furthermore, as a writer for any of these shows, do you ever notice how in the attempt to make women look powerful and intelligent, you're still perpetuating unrealistic expectations of women? While the woman is supposedly all-knowing, capable, and "really" the head of the household, they are still stick-thin, conventionally attractive, and doting mothers? Are we still not able to show an average-looking female that we can take seriously on television? While non-"conventionally attractive" men are still frequently portrayed as stupid, unattractive, and unmasculine, there are still roles available for overweight, homely, male actors where their characters are meant to be taken seriously and respected.

It's just... ridiculous. All across the board. And it's still popular! I don't understand. There isn't a person alive who shouldn't have a problem with this. I guess it's easier to just turn off criticism and laugh.

Privilege + Power = "-ism"

Let's say that Andy is a white male. He's 23, has a low-paying, unskilled job, and no education beyond 11th grade high school. Not a privileged individual by any means. Andy is also what most people would consider to be sexist. Andy truly believes that women are less intelligent than males and should submit to their male spouses. Andy also shares similarly discriminatory views against people of color, homosexuals, and people with disabilities, to name only a few. Andy is clearly a bigot and holds prejudiced views.

Now, let's step back for a moment and consider the model of oppression where an -ist action is defined by "privilege + power." With this model, a person of privilege cannot be the victim of an -ism, only a victim of prejudice. With this theory, I cannot be guilty of sexism because I am a female and do not have power to add to my prejudice. Andy, similarly, cannot be the victim of sexism, even if Jill from Accounting doesn't like him strictly because he is a male.

The question that I have, though, is what power does Andy have to add to his privilege? He's economically disadvantaged and under-educated. The lack of pigment in his skin doesn't do anything for him, nor does his sex; he isn't a respected member of his society and is given no power to use against anyone.

Am I capable of being a racist if I have no power to add to my prejudice (this is hypothetical)? I'm white, but I'm not in a position to oppress anyone in a way that isn't entirely circumstantial; therefore, no power exists. Right? Or not?

I'm not trying to get out of being called out on unintentional racism or other -isms I'm not aware of (who intentionally acts in an -ist manner, anyway?). I'm just curious about what seems like a "loophole" or potential flaw of sorts in this particular argument.

...And, furthermore, is President Obama capable of racism? If he is prejudiced against white people or any other race or ethnicity, does the ultimate power of President of the United States remove his exemption as a person of color from being racist?

I'm not standing on one side or another here, just asking what people think about this.

Bloody Mary Sunday

I am on a quest to find the Twin Cities best Bloody Mary. For my own research purposes and for the benefit of other Bloody Mary lovers in Minneapolis, I'm going to start a weekly Bloody Mary blog, where I critique a new Bloody Mary somewhere in the cities.

Today's Bloody is being enjoyed at Two Stooges in Fridley, a northern suburb of Minneapolis.

Bloody mix: medium-to-thin consistency, rich and tangy flavor. Visible chunks of pepper floating in the drink (this is a plus).

Garnishments: Pickle spear, two stuffed pimento olives.

Beer back: None?!

The drink itself, while tasty and satisfying, could have been more... exciting. The pickle and olives were good, but in order to make up for the lack of the beer back, they could have made the mix a little thicker, possibly added some celery or spiced it up a bit.

Overall grade: B+. It would have been higher with a beer back. It's possible that the server forgot, but it's also possible that they just don't include one here. Red Lobster doesn't. I don't usually want beer for breakfast, but a small glass of beer, aka the beer back, is an expected and necessary part of any good Bloody Mary and complements the overall flavor and experience of the Bloody.

Breakfast, on the other hand, was delicious and inexpensive. I ordered a three-cheese omelet, which was enormous, and came with hashed browns, for only $4.99. I will likely be coming here again!

Any suggestions on where I should go next week?

Sexist morning show hosts and the stupid things that come out of their mouths

Disclaimer: I know, I know. It's waaaay too easy to pick on people, and opinions, like the ones I'm about to rip on. But... this one touched a nerve.

I'm not sure what "morning shows" are like in other areas, but here in the Twin Cities, they tend to be comprised of a group of DJs, headed by a 30- or 40-something dude, with two or three 20-something dudes to laugh and "yeah" at the 30- or 40-year-old's diberately offensive jokes, and a token 20-something chick, to get repeatedly interrupted by the dudes, and apparently satisfy a quota of some kind. They spend 4 of the wee morning hours bantering about absolutely nothing of any relevance and spouting off opinions about any number of things that they aren't qualified to accurately analyze.

One of the morning shows I am referring to is the Dave Ryan Show at KDWB (the local Top 40 station). There's Dave, the main dude who's been hosting the show for like, a century; and Lena, the latest in revolving 20-something, quota-fulfilling chicks who appears to be second in command or something, as I tend to hear her "yeah, like, I think that [totally bigoted nonsense opinion, related in some way or another to pop culture and news headlines]" almost as often as I hear Dave say, "Seriously? I know way better than these other people because I know better than they do."

Then there's Steve-O and Crisco, whose main purposes seem to be chiming in every so often as the (still terrible and wildly offensive) Voice of Reason when Dave or Lena says something completely over the top. Oh, and their incessant paid advertisements about how they used to be fat, but as a result of spending lots of money on a manufactured diet product, now they're not!! So you should buy it.

Anyway.

So, I work in an office setting, where we're able to have radios at low volume or use headphones, as long as we can still hear the dreaded phone ring, so I take advantage of this and have gotten what I listen to, and when, down to a science. My favorite thing to listen to while at work is talk radio. I start by listening to the Dave Ryan show when I get in at 8, and usually switch to NPR once the boring shows end, between 9 and 10. The thing is, I understand that when they say their usual offensive crap, it's mostly exaggerated and mostly for ratings. I get that it's entertainment and not a news and serious commentary show. I expect that most people are reasonable and not hateful. I can ignore it well enough and just pay attention to the parts that are entertaining to me. But man, sometimes someone just goes over the top, and sounds way too genuine for comfort.

This morning, Dave was discussing Chris Brown's recent profanity-laced Twitter updates about how Wal-Mart was supposedly blacklisting him because they didn't have his new album in stock.* Chris Brown apparently went nuts about it, all over the internet, complete with all kinds of swear words and a plethora of other garbage for one to roll their eyes about.

Today, it was discovered that Wal-Mart does, in fact, carry the album; they were simply sold out of them at the time that Chris Brown visited their particular location.

Right, he's an idiot. Forgettable recording artist gets mad because he assumes that the reason that people don't want to buy his terrible CD is because he beat up his girlfriend at the time, Rihanna. Turns out, while he should have been right, he wasn't, and so now he looks stupid.

Dave Ryan then begins to discuss Chris Brown's dumbassery, and then further elaborates about how he feels that women's rights groups haven't adequately -- or ever -- addressed the issue of Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna, and then surmises that this could possibly be because all we feminists think Chris Brown is just so cute. What's wrong with these women? A high-profile guy beats up his high-profile girlfriend, it's all over the news, and these feminists have nothing to say about it! Must be because they think he's hot!! Also, Dave Ryan is ashamed that we aren't outside of Wal-Mart, calling for nationwide boycotts.

No, Dave Ryan, you fucking moron. You're wrong. And you clearly pay absolutely no attention whatsoever to women's rights activists or any feminist community. Know how I know this?

Here, Dave Ryan, let me Google that for you.

Or, we could be a little easier on you. Maybe the words "feminist" and "response" are too much for you to handle. Hell, we don't even have to type a complete phrase in order to find scores of relevant hits about feminist and women's rights activists responses to Chris Brown beating Rhiann.

If you go to the hugely popular feminist blog Feministing, and type "Chris Brown" into their search bar, the first page alone has 24 relevant hits.

Also, Dave Ryan, have you ever heard of that little organization called NOW? You know, the National Organization for Women, that one organization that likes to talk about silly lady stuff like gender equality and misogyny? How about the president of NOW, Terry O'Neill, whose been vocal and up-front about her history as a survivor of domestic violence? Have you heard of her? I assume you may have heard of NOW, considering the fact that you care so much about women who are victims of domestic abuse. And how much of a supporter you are of women's rights. Interesting, how, if you Google "NOW president," the fourth hit is "NOW president Terri O'Neill on Chris Brown."

Wasn't that exactly what it was you were claiming didn't exist? Because I'm pretty sure that the president of the nation's leading women's right's organization made a public statement about Chris Brown.

Also, Dave Ryan? NOW has a lot more to be concerned about than celebrities with entitlement issues. Like equal access to abortion, and other serious women's rights issues all over the news right now. Picketing local Sam Goodys? Not at the top of the priority list. But if you're so concerned, we'd be happy to cheer you on as you start a movement about something that you're so clearly passionate about.

So, Dave Ryan, and Lena Svenson, and your deliberately oblivious cohorts, could you please at least attempt to know what the fuck you're talking about before you spout off a bunch of inaccurate nonsense all over the airwaves? Women who don't give a fuck about what Chris Brown looks like will be grateful.

Thanks.

*I tried to find an audio clip of the segment of the morning show that I was referencing, but was unable to. Once/If I find one, I'll update the post with the link.