Fifty Ways To Be A Woman

Okay, that number is way off.  Which direction depends on your definition of woman.  The hullabaloo at the recent Olympics got me thinking about this more deeply than I usually do.    I'm not sure of the details, but from what I gather, an athlete's hormone levels indicated male even though her body (genitals)  indicated female.  Myself, I think the Olympic committee knows their own standards and can make the call.  End of that discussion on my end. 

Typically, females have different hormone levels than males. We have different genes.  We also have different brain functions when under a brain scan.  And, of course, the private parts are not the same.  These are all sex (biological).  And there's the whole gender (social construct) question - what do we identify as?  

But it got me to thinking.  Intersex happens.  It is a rare event, but as we learn more and find new ways of defining sex, it could become simply unusual or possibly even commonplace.  Ignoring gender and focusing only on sex, even now we have cases of genetics not matching genitals and/or hormones and/or brain scans.  

Intersex people are traditionally those whose genes do not match the genitals, or those who have indeterminate genitals.  Suppose there is an as yet unknown biological aspect to transgenderism... the brain chemistry.  This would give us four biological ways to define the sex.  Maybe transgenders, to go back to an archaic and possibly insensitive term, are transsexual.  (Remember, we're defining sex and gender differently.)  

Most people go through life perfectly okay with the sex diagnosed at birth or before.  Finding out your hormones or genes don't match up can cause problems, privately and publicly.  Add to that the brain scan possibility.  Now... Imagine a person with female genes and female anatomy, but male hormones and male brain chemistry.  What is this person?  

I see news articles almost every day reporting a presumed male skeleton having female DNA, blowing notions about ancient societies out of the water, and this could bear on the future.  I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda, except possibly my usual DEATH TO GENDER ROLES.  

Of Hurricanes and Hatred

 I'm gonna start this by reminding my readers that I am aggressively nonpartisan.  I vote for those I feel are best qualified to do the job I want done, regardless of what letter appears behind their name in parentheses.  I vote for third party candidates when one meets my criteria and loathe the fact that we're brainwashed by the two-party system.  

That said... The very idea of a hurricane in the Smokies boggles the mind.  But Helene has taken out a huge chunk of western North Carolina and a good sized bit of Tennessee.  I honestly believe the Smokies saved the rest of eastern Tennessee.  To put it very simply, the hurricane bounced off them hills!  

My Facebook feed is full of Helpers.  It does my little black heart good, just like the plethora of food pantries during the pandemic.  Civilian groups, state and local agencies, even just Jim-Bob next door are pouring into the area from all over the country.  And even from outside the country! 

Dolly Parton donated money to the cause, and I wouldn't be surprised if she's out there in her civvies handing out food and water.  (It's not like we'd recognize her!)  Other celebrities have followed her lead, but as usual when people are in need, Dolly led the pack.  

But FEMA has dropped the ball, or at least fumbled it a little.  Internal agency issues, budgeting, and paperwork gets in the way of a quick response by any federal agency.  It simply doesn't matter at this point who shortchanged FEMA this time, because it's been getting ripped off as long as it has existed.  Disaster victims are less important than a pet special interest group.   

In all the news reports, in all the Facebook posts, I've seen nothing to support claims that FEMA isn't letting people in.  Because I've yet to see any vehicles that say FEMA on them.  If the National Guard units and local law enforcement are trying to stop you from getting in there, odds are that you simply are not qualified to do anything more than endanger yourself and others.  Go home, stay out of the way, and let them work.

This disaster is not the fault of FEMA, of any political party, and certainly not of any given individual.  The very idea of a "weather control device" defies the laws of physics.  Yes, it is possible to affect the weather by seeding clouds and such, but no one can drive a hurricane or tornado around like it's a 56 Buick.

And honestly, at this point, I'm looking sideways at those of you pointing the finger of blame.  I'm wondering if you'd leave some hillbilly stranded because he was or wasn't wearing a MAGA hat.  Shame on all of you.  

Not You

There's an idiosyncrasy among us humans that both amuses and annoys me.  I usually refer it it as "it's okay if my party does it" because the most egregious examples I see are among political partisans.  Don't vote for Bob because he did the same thing you excuse Bill doing.  But it's not just politics.  

I caught myself doing it the other day.  In my apartment complex, there are residents with non-working vehicles.  Said residents do nothing to fix or remove the vehicles, thus taking up parking spots better used by those of us with working vehicles.  I'm not talking broken down for a day or even a week, I'm talking months.  I could plant a crop on the van out there.   Yet even as I grumble and gripe, I make excuses for one of those residents.  Because I like him.  I don't like or know the others.  

I've been told anyone on government benefits is morally repulsive and then given a pass when I mention my own dependence on SSDI.  I was in a store yesterday and realized that, if I hadn't been standing there to see the cashier's efforts to fix the register (it was having a nervous breakdown over a check), I'd be grumbling like all the people in line behind me.  

We all do it, especially if we actively dislike the person in question.  I had a million examples in mind but, of course, most of them jumped out of my head as soon as I started typing.  I guess it's just human nature.  We have more compassion for those we know and/or like.  

Maybe it's a defense mechanism.  We simply are not capable of loving some stranger across the world as strongly as we do our friends and family.  Either way, it's been on my mind and I blogged about it because that's what I do.  

 

Thoughts on July Fourth

 Today is one of my favorite holidays, because it's about the ideals this country was founded on.  Not the nation as it is, fallen short of those ideals, but the nation as it could and should be.  The Great American Melting Pot.  The American Dream.  Also, we get to pig out and blow things up. 

I've got friends and family all over the political and religious spectrums.  Among us, Republicans sit down with Democrats and Independents and even those who choose not to vote at all.  The religious grab a drink for the atheist.  We focus on what we have in common instead of the differences.  Which is exactly what one of the aforementioned ideals is.  

I've could go on and on about how Americans have failed The Founders, but not today.  Today is about what we can be if we chose to be.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   E Pluribus Unum.  We The People.  All that jazz. 

Let's not dwell on negativity.  It's on us to protect and nurture that more perfect union that The Founders and countless others since have fought and even died for.  A place where people of diverse cultures can break bread and laugh together. Have your junk food and your boom-booms.  Embrace (literally or otherwise) someone the nay-sayers call your enemy.  

America's turned out to be more a stew than a melt, but when was the last time you saw a potato duking it out with a carrot?  Or even a hunk of meat?  Hmmm.... maybe we're a Mixing Pot instead of a Melting Pot?  

Anyway....  Enjoy the holiday.  I intend to. 

 

Bears In The Woods

 I really did try not to hop on this bandwagon.  And I'm not hopping on for the reasons many might think.

In case you've been in a cave or on a desert island... someone made a video asking women who they would rather run into if alone in the woods - a man or a bear.  Most of the women replied that they'd prefer the bear.  Reasons given included wildlife's natural inclination to leave you alone if you leave them alone and the fact that a bear will only maul or kill you.  (Bear ain't gonna hold you hostage and do unspeakable things to you.)

My first response was bear because if I'm out in the woods, I'm hoping to see some wildlife.  

Yes, demographics support the point the video was making.  I am not disputing this.  I'm not even going to trot out my "not even most" logic (see previous blog post titled the same) to defend the men.  The women who chose the bear had valid reasons.

I've not seen the video in question, but I'm willing to bet it is edited.  Selectively edited.  I could splice together a video "proving" all my siblings like me best by questioning each of them, then taking out everything that contradicts my claim.  So... how many women chose the man and were edited out?  

The scenario that came to my mind was one I've been in many times:  Hiking a trail and falling behind my group because they are all younger and healthier.  (I'm not foolish enough to go alone very far into any woods a bear might pop out of.)  So even if the bear or the man behaved in a threatening manner, I'd have a weapon - my hiking stick - and others nearby to help me.  

What I find interesting is the number of people who, when given a third option, choose a woman.  That's seated in gender roles, which would require a whole other blog post.  I'd still choose the bear if coming from a place of fear. Humans are  more to be feared than any animal.  Even Cujo and Cocaine Bear were honest about their intentions.  

It's not so much a condemnation of men as it is of society.  I understand choosing the bear because if it mauls me, even if I was trying to take a selfie with the bear's cubs, everyone will blame the bear.  That does not happen enough when a man attacks a woman.

The Barbie Movie

I couldn't go see it in the theater, being hard of hearing.  Had to wait for home video.  Totally worth the wait.  What a roller coaster!

A lot of the complaints about this movie can be summed up as "it's feminist propaganda".  DUH. Barbie has always been a feminist.  She was invented during the heyday of Donna Reed and June Cleaver, with the stated mission of demonstrating to little girls that possibilities are not limited to being a wife and mommy.  She never needed a man - a movie in-joke that makes me want to hug poor ole Ken.  

I love all the little references to Mattel's history.  Weird Barbie's minions are all discontinued dolls.  The residents of Barbieland live in Dream Houses. There is even a sly reference to the Bratz lawsuit.  Rhea Perlman plays Ruth Handler's ghost.  Barbara Handler has a cameo.  (Ruth created the doll, named it for daughter Barbara.)    

Lots of cameos.  Many celebrities asked to be in this movie and got cast, basically, as extras. 

SPOILERS AHEAD 

Barbies know of The Real World, where they believe the invention of the Barbie doll completely wiped out patriarchy.  When Barbie confides to her friends that strange things have been happening, the consensus is that she's malfunctioning.  She goes to see Weird Barbie, who got played with too hard and is now the local seer.  Weird Barbie sends her to The Real World.  

In the real world, the only ones who know of Barbieland are the executives at Mattel.  There's an interesting bit when Barbie is being told (by Sasha, the girl who outgrew her) how she's bad for the self esteem of girls is juxtaposed with the Mattel executives talking about how the doll is empowering women.  

The Mattel executives find out about Barbie's crossing over and seek her out, trying to avoid a repeat of "the Skipper incident".  Barbie and Ken are quickly discovering that her invention did not obliterate patriarchy.  (This is really the only point I took issue with -- none of the women they see hold any kind of power, anywhere.  In 21st century LA.)  

The executives at Mattel are all male, which could be true in real life.  Mattel was always at the forefront of hiring women and minorities, but even now men hold most powerful positions in corporations.  These men appear (at least to me)  sincere in the belief that the doll is empowering women, and that it is a good thing.  

Ken comes to see that he's the victim of a matriarchy as toxic as the real world's patriarchy ever was.  Barbie is fleeing the executives, with the help of Sasha and her mother Gloria.  The malfunctions Barbie was having, we learn, are the result of Gloria projecting her adult concerns onto the doll.  Ken beats them home.

Barbieland is no more - it has become Kendom.  Barbie and her human friends join forces with Weird Barbie and her minions to take Barbieland back.  I won't give away more than that... there's only a few minutes left after the beach battle fought with tennis rackets and volleyballs.  

Final point - I once laughed at the idea of a Barbie movie getting Oscar nominations.  Not now.  They made it work on all levels, at the same time.  They overthought Barbie even as they made me giggle.  

Not Even Most

Saw a meme today that said "Men who say NOT ALL MEN should be locked in a room full of snakes.  Not all of them are venomous."  I'm not sure it I'm supposed to laugh or admit the truth.  I did neither because it's based on a fallacy.   A few fallacies, actually.    

Fallacy 1: Women have to be careful walking alone because a man might attack her.  True statement.  Yet it is also true that a woman might attack her.  Or an animal might attack her.  It's more accurate to say any person walking alone should be careful because they might be attacked.  No one gets vilified, and certainly no entire groups.  (It's my personal experience that an animal attack is far more likely, but I digress.)  

Fallacy 2: Let's talk about those snakes.  Say there are a hundred snakes locked in that room.  Only 10 to 15 are going to be venomous and even fewer prey on anything the size of a human.  Even the deadliest snake does not bite for fun.  The snake that bites for no reason is a rare creature indeed.  

I'm fully aware that people are not snakes.  Some would even argue that we are not animals.  Yet the basic principle applies - how many men  are willing or able to randomly attack a fellow human being?  

Fallacy 3: It kind of leans into blaming the victim.  I understand the man who objects "Not all men".  Nobody likes to be stereotyped, and certainly not negatively stereotyped.  

I suggest "not even most" as the phraseology.  Or a sarcastic "thanks" if you're feeling less intellectual.  The latter usually gets a response of  "Oh, not you.  Other (men, in this case)."  Ask for names if they say that.  

This advice doesn't just apply to the given scenario.  It works with almost any blanket statement. Try it when you find yourself being lumped in with evil-doers  because you share a sex, religion, or political leaning.