My "fuck you" to ignorance

A month or so ago, I was invited to write for a site that I won't name. It was a group blog with a decent readership, authored by a diverse group of people. The owner approached me because he thought they could use the voice of a "young, urban female" and he liked what he read here.

I was extremely flattered, as no one ever asks me to write anywhere. More than that, I was intimidated. The posts that I read there were well-written and intelligent, if somewhat bordering on intellectual to the point of being dry. It was a far cry from the occasional storytelling and whatever else it is that I do here, but I was excited about the challenge and signed on for their standard requirement: 3 posts a month about anything I wanted.

I wrote a few posts but never linked to any of them because I didn't care that much about them, and I ended up mostly skipping or skimming the posts from the other authors (that whole "dry intellectual" thing is really not what I like to read in my free time). A few titles caught my eye, though, so occasionally I read some things.

And frankly, I was disgusted.

I found myself reading a post talking about how Equal Pay Day is "hooey." I read a post about how feminism is a bunch of bullshit because men have been the oppressed gender all along. I read a rant about "lefties" and their tyranny in forcing Brendan Eich out of the top spot at Mozilla because of his past donation to Prop 8. And that wasn't even all of them.

I read these posts and fumed. I wrote, and never published, angry retorts. I decided I didn't want to get involved in a comment war that would surely end in nothing but frustration. Where does one even begin in trying to reason with someone who doesn't believe the data saying women are paid less than men?

The more I read, the more I hated myself for being a part of that site, and the less I ever wanted to link to any of my posts and drive traffic there. I knew that this site encompassed a diverse range of perspectives but, perhaps naively, it had never crossed my mind that among the diversity would also be bigotry. Living in a city as wonderfully liberal as New York, you never really encounter those people. You know, the ones who don't believe in things like, oh I don't know, fucking equality.

I sent the site owner the following email:

While I never thought I would last forever on the site, I certainly thought I would make it longer than this. But alas, here I am, tendering my resignation as an author on ----. In my short time there I've seen a few too many ignorant, hateful posts that stem from people leaning so far to the right that they're actually just leaning backwards. I've never been one to mind those of different political leanings when it comes to, say, fiscal conservatism or the debate over universal healthcare, but I can't get down with anyone who legitimately does not believe in a) all humans being treated as equals, and b) that there is so much work to be done towards said equality. While I realize that others' opinions don't reflect on me, I have no desire to share the same virtual space as them. And so I thank you so much for this opportunity, as you have been nothing but gracious to me, but I cannot continue with this. I apologize for all the effort you went through to get me on board, and I do hope you find a new "young urban female" voice soon. Perhaps one that is a little braver than I and wants to tackle the challenge of converting the ignorant over simply choosing to surround herself with people who believe in equality, open-mindedness and tolerance - and only those people.

Arielle

Our exchange went on from there, and included the owner linking me to a photo of the offending author's son and his African American prom date, which he had posted as a comment elsewhere on the site. The intent was to make me see that this person is not, in fact, a bigot. I told the owner that I was glad that at least this man had evolved enough to accept racial minorities as equals. And after a few more back and forths, we had said our goodbyes.

At first I thought maybe I should have stayed on as an author, using my "young, urban female"ness - 3 qualities which seemed to be underrepresented on the site - to make some impassioned arguments in favor of some of those values that we "lefties" hold so dear. But I didn't join the site to go to war. I didn't want to read posts by "colleagues" and feel outrage. Writing is a hobby for me; something I do for fun. And so I said my non-literal "fuck you" to ignorance and left. It may have been the quietest possible "fuck you" I could have mustered in that situation, but I was making my point.

If having tolerant, accepting, loving friends and family is a bubble I'm sheltering myself with, I will happily stay cocooned in here most of the time. I like to believe that in the moments when I do choose to fight the good fight, it has been, and will be, in ways more powerful and effective than a petty comment war could have ever been.

In Lena Dunham's Corner

Lena Dunham is a pretty polarizing figure. Anyone familiar with her seems to have a pretty strong opinion - love her, hate her, love Girls, hate Girls, too much nudity, love the nudity, she's gorgeous, she's a troll.

Usually the Lena internet chatter is pretty minimal when there isn't a current Girls season airing, but the other day I came across this NY Post article about why Lena shouldn't follow through on her talks with Anna Wintour about posing for Vogue. The argument is that Vogue only puts heavier women on the cover as a way of occasionally showing, "oh hey, look at us, we're edgy and revolutionary because we put an ugly chick in our magazine," and not as a way of showing that those women - who, by the way, include Oprah, Adele, and Serena Williams, to name a few - are smart or talented or sexy or otherwise worthy of being on the cover of a famous fashion magazine.

I think this logic is totally flawed, and let me explain why (did I just ask for permission to write something on my own blog? I guess I did).

Lena Dunham is the shit. I don't know her personally, of course, so my opinions of her consist largely of what I can glean from a) Girls b) her Twitter account and c) Miranda July's We Think Alone project, where every Monday for 20 weeks you received an email digest consisting of personal emails from the archives of 9 celebrities, including Lena, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and Kirsten Dunst, among others.

From what I can tell, Lena is smart, funny, hard-working, humble, and passionate. She's a feminist role model, a confident woman, and does not appear to give a fuck what you think. I love all of these things about her. And sure, though it may not resonate with me 100% of the time, I think Girls is one of the best representations of life in New York that I've ever seen on TV. Though she may not have gotten the opportunity to write, produce, and star in her own show at age 26 without well-connected parents, I fully believe that she deserves it.

Though people have a ton of negative things to say about her, most of the controversy around Lena Dunham stems from the fact that she dares to walk around in her underwear on television despite, *gasp*, not having a perfect body. Ignoring the fact that the internet seems to think she wears a size 8, which is several sizes smaller than what the average American woman wears, I have to say - so what? Unless you live in Clockwork Orange, no one is forcing anyone to watch anything. If you don't want to see a size 8 woman play topless ping pong, you don't have to! It's a beautiful place we live in, isn't it? America the beautiful! Land of the free!

Frankly, I would give a lot of things to be a fraction as confident in my own skin as Lena is. I love the fact that she writes sex scenes for her Girls character much the same as she writes sex scenes for the other, super skinny characters. Maybe this shouldn't be necessary in order to demonstrate to some ignorant folks out there that you can be a "larger" woman and still be seen as sexually desirable, but I guess it is.

You know what else apparently needs to be very clearly explained to people? The fact that "fat" girls (I keep using quotation marks here because again, despite never having seen her in person I'm pretty sure Lena Dunham doesn't fully qualify) can take themselves seriously. I laughed just as much as the next person when Melissa McCarthy's character in Bridesmaids shamelessly hits on the air marshal. The only reason this bit landed with audiences is because we're not supposed to find her attractive. While I adore that movie and I really adore Melissa McCarthy, I appreciate that Lena doesn't feel the need to constantly poke fun at herself. She and her character Hannah are full and complete individuals who have lives - and relationships and problems and other real concerns - outside of their weight. But some people seem to think that if you're heavy, that's the be all and end all of who you are. As someone who is also in the not-even-close-to-size-zero range, I can always tell the difference between someone who views me as a normal human being and someone who views me strictly as a "fat chick." While I love the moments when I'm able to make my friends laugh (and I swear there was a time when I used to be funny on my blog), I resent the occasional pressure I feel to always be funny, partially because I'm not always funny, and partially because my weight doesn't preclude me from experiencing other emotions or eliciting those emotions from others.

But back to Vogue!

I think Lena should absolutely pose for the cover of Vogue. I'm not concerned that Vogue typically only puts the ultra svelte elite on their cover, even though this is true. If they truly only wanted Lena on the cover to prove that they don't feature thin girls 100% of the time, they wouldn't need to put her (or Oprah, or Adele, or Serena) on the cover - they could feature any overweight Jo Shmo. Or Jane Shmo, I guess I should say. But they choose women who are powerful and remarkable for exactly that reason - these women are powerful and remarkable and thus, worthy of recognition. They may not look like the typical Vogue cover model, but they're still worth highlighting.

Think about it this way: let's say Lena Dunham really wanted to be on the cover of Vogue, and they initially said no because she has curves and thighs that rub together when she walks. Then Vogue reverses its decision and says yes. Should Lena then refuse on principle because they didn't initially want her? Or should she seize the opportunity to do her small part in setting, or at least continuing, the precedent that you can grace the cover of Vogue by virtue of your accomplishments and not your tiny waistline? (Even if Vogue does a kind of annoying thing and photoshops you to the point of making it look like you have a tiny waistline. Baby steps, small victories, etc etc). Is there anyone out there who truly believes that the only reason anyone would ever put Oprah in a magazine is to prove that they don't have an anti-fat stance? I mean, Oprah is kind of the unofficial queen of the world.

I'm pretty low on the spectrum of people who follow celebrity news, but even I am tired of the anti-Lena rhetoric. I'm weary of reading comments about how fat she is, how she looks like a "sea cow," or how Girls is so unrealistic because no one who looks like her could ever have as much sex as Hannah does. Why can't we applaud someone for being bold and for kicking ass despite not conforming to conventional (and bullshit) standards of beauty?

Lena, I hope I do see you on the cover of Vogue one day. I probably won't buy it, because a Target-clad lady such as myself has no interest in high fashion, but it would certainly be the first issue of Vogue that I ever flip through while standing in the aisles of CVS.

Get it, girl.

Defending Macklemore (and why all of us, gay or straight, have to look out for each other)

Perusing Facebook as I often do, I came across the following headline, posted by one of the NYC music pages that I follow:

Le1f just blasted Macklemore for "Same Love" 

I had no idea who Le1f was, but the notion that someone was "blasting" a song about legalizing gay marriage certainly got my attention. I assumed Le1f was one of the many sad people out there who think homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible, right there with women daring to open their mouths in places of worship ("Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak" - 1 Corinthians) or, um, the bulk of American eating habits ("The eating of fat is prohibited forever" - Leviticus).

I clicked the link and was pretty surprised to learn that Le1f isn't shitting all over Macklemore because he hates gay people - he's doing it because he IS gay and how dare a straight guy make money off someone else's issues?! He's also pissed because Macklemore didn't donate any of the proceeds from Same Love to pro-LGBT charities.

 Photo via

Before I really get down to it, let's address some of the more minor issues that arise here.

1) Macklemore and Ryan Lewis aren't signed with a major label and release all their music independently. While they certainly have a ton of money at this point, artists who voluntarily choose to forgo big name representation are probably at least slightly less in it for the money than others. Maybe he thinks that they wrote this song with the express purpose of making money off it, but I'm not convinced.

2) I did some googling and discovered that Le1f thinks Macklemore and Ryan Lewis ripped off his song Wut in their song, Thrift Shop. I assume you're all familiar with Thrift Shop, so here's Wut, for comparison:



There's a pretty strong horn section here. Just like in Thrift Shop. Are they similar? Sure. The same? No. Is there a rich history of sampling other people's songs in rap music that dates back to the beginning of rap itself so even if Thrift Shop did directly sample Wut it would be totally normal? Yes. Know your roots, Le1f.

3) A day after I originally published this post, I learned from a friend of Lacey's that Macklemore did, in fact, donate some of the proceeds from Same Love to Washington United for Marriage. So that point is totally bunk.

And now, on to the good stuff.

Though my immediate, visceral reaction to reading this slew of hateful tweets (all of which Le1f has since deleted) was one of disgust, I tried to put myself in his shoes before even entertaining the idea of writing this blog post.

As a woman, what I can or cannot do with my own body is a subject of national debate. What if a man, lacking a uterus, came out with a pro-choice rap song? What if he gave not even a single penny from his profits to Planned Parenthood? Would this anger me?

No, no it would not. In fact, it would be make me pretty damn happy. Sure, money to Planned Parenthood would be great, but so is verbal support and awareness. Because we don't live in the kind of society where it's perfectly acceptable to throw your hands up and yell, "NOT MY PROBLEM, SUCKA" when we witness injustices happening around us but not to us. Change will never happen if we only look after ourselves and don't stand up for our fellow man (or woman!). So if a man wants to champion a woman's right to choose even if he is not now, and will never be, a woman? High five, brotha. Happy to have you in my corner. I certainly don't have any poll results to draw from, but I would imagine that there are lots of gay men and women out there who are overjoyed to have a celebrity straight ally in Macklemore. Look at Lady Gaga - some people love her for the music and the meat dress. Some love her for the LGBT activism.

Furthermore, the issue of gay marriage represents so much more than giving people some legal rights (albeit very very important and meaningful ones). It's an issue of equality, and equality is EVERYONE'S problem. And while many of us have been fortunate enough to have never been discriminated against in our lifetimes, it doesn't mean that no one in our situation ever has. Identifying as a Jewish person certainly has different ramifications for me than it did for my grandparents. Am I allowed to just sit back and relax now that I live in a place where being Jewish is totally acceptable, even though not every minority group is quite so comfortable? The short answer: no.

My wholly unsolicited advice to Le1f would be as follows: stop hating on people who are trying to help you. Promoting a message of equality, especially through such a stereotypically un-LGBT-friendly medium as rap music, is never a bad thing.

The odd woman out

I am now going to write about a very important topic. I hope you're ready.

At some point during business school, over the many weekends that I stayed with various friends in NYC, I realized something very strange. I noticed that one of my friends puts her bras on upside down and backwards. She clasps it in the front, then turns it around and flips it up and puts it on.

I saw this go on (without seeing any boobs, for those of you who are wondering, hello any men reading this) and was all, "Are you 13 years old? Put your bra on like an adult." I thought it was totally crazy that a grown woman would still do this. I put my bra on the way it's supposed to go on. I clasp it behind my back and it takes me all of 3 seconds.

The next time I was out at dinner with the girls, I took an informal poll as to how people put their bras on. And you know what I found out?

EVERYONE PUTS THEIR BRAS ON UPSIDE DOWN AND BACKWARDS.

Further polling has given me similar results.

I mean, what the fuck?

I was flabbergasted. Everyone was all, "wah wah it's easier, it's so hard to do it when you can't see." PEOPLE! Do men not take bras off without seeing? I mean sure maybe it's easier to open than to close but some guys can do it with one hand and my friends, I most certainly cannot clasp my bra with one hand so I'd say we're about even. Me and the men, that is.

Also, I do this every day. Most men probably don't deal with bras every day. And if they do, well, lucky them.

For realsies, though. Am I the only woman out there who took the time to struggle through putting a bra on PROPERLY, much in the same way we struggle to learn to tie our shoes? Sure, at first it's a little slow but after doing it like, 10 times you get the hang of it. I swear, I will race any chick out there who puts her bra on backwards like a 12 year old and I'll win. Even with one of those bras with 3 clasps.

Okay, the idea of this race is pretty weird, so feel free to not hold me to it. But you get the idea.

What is this world coming to when women refuse to learn a simple task? Dear women out there: if you have an itch on your back, let's say, right around the spot where your bra usually is, can you reach back and scratch it? Can you write legibly between the lines on a sheet of ruled paper? If you answered "yes" to both of these, congratulations! You are both flexible enough and have strong enough fine motor skills to be able to put your bra on without all the twisting and whatever else. Try it out sometime.

Is anyone with me on this?

Rethinking the Guinness World Records

This morning, I read this article about the man who holds the Guinness world record for holding the most Guinness world records (how meta!).

I have no problem with the idea of world records. Fastest 100 meter dash? Tallest building? Sure, why not.

The thing that bothers me, though, is the creation of records for the sake of creating records. The pride and glory that people apparently get from holding Guinness records make them do things that no one would ever bother doing in real life.

For example, a few of the records that Mr. Furman, the ultimate record holder, has are: clapping his hands for the longest period of time (50 hours), longest distance covered by continuous somersaulting (12 miles), and the most apples thrown in the air and sliced with a Samurai sword in one minute (27 - okay, that's kind of awesome, but only because I wish I could slice even ONE airborne apple with a sword).

If people can think of the most arbitrary things in which to hold records, doesn't this diminish the importance of the Guinness institution? Am I the only person that thinks so? I know that Guinness doesn't accept every record application it gets, but still. Largest gathering of people dressed like characters from the Wizard of Oz? WHERE DOES THE MADNESS END?

All of this being said, I actually helped set 2 Guinness world records during my semester abroad in Sydney - the largest gathering of blondes in one place, and the world's longest tequila slam (a line of people all taking a shot one after the other). Both are pretty amusing stories, but I realize how utterly dumb they are, even as I feel some sort of solidarity with my tequila-guzzling peers. The blonde thing was a little bit of a stretch, even though I AM a natural dirty blonde. In more ways than one! HIYOOOO.

For all I know, one or both of those records have been broken by other groups in the 7 years since they've been set. I wouldn't be sad about it, to be honest. Until I can do something meaningful better or faster than the rest of the 6 billion people on this planet, I don't think I really deserve any recognition.

Some suburban awfulness for you

I've noticed recently that 2 of my neighbors display the following sign in their yards:


One sign looks just like this one, the other says "NO POOPING!" instead of just the "NO." As if, you know, the little piece of crap hanging out of this dog's ass isn't enough for you to get what the sign is going for.

Look, I get it. My parents live in the suburbs and with the suburbs come a LOT of dogs, and with dogs come the occasional inconsiderate owner who doesn't pick up afterwards. But this, my friends, is capital T Tacky.

Dear neighbors: when people drive or walk by your house, instead of seeing a nice house and a manicured lawn (which may or may not have dog poop in it, I guess), they are going to see this sign. And nothing else. They will pay no attention to what your property looks like because all they can look at is this dog sign and the ACTUAL POOP COMING OUT OF ITS BUTT.

That is all.

When I grow up...

Three of my friends recently shared this link on Facebook. It's a New York Times Magazine article about how 20-somethings are taking longer to grow up these days, how they're traveling around, relying on their parents too much, "avoiding commitments" and otherwise not accepting the imminent demise of their youths.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I didn't read the whole article. It was really long and I got lazy. Judging by the comment stream on Facebook there is a lot more to the article than what I read. But I'm just commenting on the first section. You know, in case any of you read the whole thing and get confused as to why I didn't address the rest of it.

The article mentioned the 5 milestones of adulthood: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying and having a child. People are reaching these milestones later than ever, and apparently, this is concerning.

While the article fully admits that the idea of these milestones is outdated, it still sort of uses them as a basis on which to judge whether or not people have "grown up."

This concept, in my opinion, is completely and totally ridiculous in a really frustrating way.

While I have successfully reached the first 3 milestones, it will be a long time before I reach the last 2, if ever. Furthermore, I'm moving back home in a few days and while I don't receive any money from my parents, I'm not really sure you can be considered financially independent if you live at home and don't pay for rent, food or laundry. So essentially I'm back at milestone #1, which I have actually completed twice (extra credit?).

Somehow, though, I don't feel like any less of an adult. My concerns these days are more of "I need to find a job," "I have a mountain of debt," and "WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T MY WALL STREET JOURNAL COME TODAY?" (seriously, that stressed me out and is pretty much the reason why I thought to even write this post). These are far different concerns than the ones I had when I was 22, fresh out of college and admittedly a lot less mature. I worried about where I would drink on the weekends and whether or not I would receive any funny emails at work that day. Those are still my concerns, don't get me wrong, but they've moved down on the priority list.

When I think about my friends who are married or have children, it seems totally foreign to me. I say things like "Wow, he/she is like a REAL PERSON now," but it's all said in the spirit of facetiousness. Because really, I don't think that having a spouse or a child makes someone any more of an adult. It means they may have more responsibilities and again, different priorities, but not necessarily that they're more "adult."

The difference between being single and free childless and being married with children is mostly circumstantial, and partially a matter of different life choices. My [legally] single friends aren't married because they haven't met the right person or haven't reached that point in their relationships (circumstances). The reason they don't have children is because they haven't decided that they want children yet (life choices - because even if you're single, if you want a baby you can obviously have one anyway).

I guess the idea that I'm not an adult purely because I haven't yet completed the good ol' all-American college-job-husband-child path really just doesn't sit well with me. What about the path of college-job-grad school-focus on career-kick ass at aformentioned career-let the husband/baby thing happen when it happens? I don't think there is anything wrong with slowing down and taking the time to figure out what's right for me. Maybe if everyone wasn't so desperate to get married we wouldn't have a 50% divorce rate in this country.

If your blogs are any indication, I have a feeling a lot of you out there would agree with me on this one.

LAZY

This is one of my last posts about Boston! In case you aren't 100% up on my awesome life, I am moving home to New Jersey in just TWELVE DAYS! (!!!!!!!) But even better than that, in 18 days I will be moving to New York.

I AM MOVING BACK TO NEW YORK AND I AM SO EXCITED I WANT TO RUN AROUND MY APARTMENT SINGING BAD ROMANCE AND MAKING CLAW ARMS! (I've been doing this a lot since the Glee concert).

The point is though, this post is about Boston. And specifically, how people in Boston aren't really used to walking. This is weird to me because in New York, everyone walks. The city is for the most part a simple grid and as long as the weather doesn't suck and you don't have to wear heels, walking is normal.

People in Boston look at me weird when I tell them I walked somewhere. Recently, someone even reacted with complete horror when I told them I was walking back to the T after work instead of waiting for a bus to take me there. The walk was exactly 13 minutes long, it was 10 o'clock at night and I had no idea when the bus would come and I knew I'd get there faster if I walked. Their response: "But that's so far! I HATE WALKING!"

Fine. Boston, you may think I'm weird for walking. But I don't care. And to throw it back at you, I AM APPALLED AT YOUR LAZINESS.

I frequently take a bus from where I live to a lovely little area called Harvard Square. I get on said bus at the second stop. I can see the beginning of the route from my stop.

Awhile ago, I saw someone get off the bus at the 4th or 5th stop. I thought, "Wait, really? They couldn't just...walk that distance?" I decided to Google Map it to check the distance. .6 miles (and no, they did not have any bags or anything large or heavy).

But it gets worse. Because in the last few months, I have seen people get off at the third stop. .3 miles. POINT THREE MILES! Are you serious?

Recently, some friends were in town for my Tufts 5 year reunion, and we waited for my lovely bus to Harvard Square. The bus pulled up, and someone got off. My mouth hit the floor, and I proceeded to flip my lid to my New Yorker friends, who clearly didn't know that the bus originated pretty much across the street from where we were. For at least 5 minutes I could not contain my cries of "DID THAT PERSON REALLY JUST WASTE $1.50 ON THAT BUS RIDE?!?!"

Google Maps says the distance is less than .2 miles. This person could not bear to walk that distance. WHO DOES THAT?!?

Bostonians, you are contributing to the increasingly sedentary lifestyle of Americans. If you don't want to be like me and walk 25 minutes to the post office instead of waiting for the bus, that's fine, but walking a quarter of a mile takes all of 5 minutes.

Be like Nike and JUST FREAKING DO IT. Or I'm going to punch you next time you get off the bus when I get on it.

Niecy Nash

Okay, this is yet another post about Dancing With the Stars. Shut up, I like it.

Even though she got kicked off last week, Niecy Nash is still one of my favorite contestants. She was completely hilarious, which is sort of expected seeing as she's a comedian (or, comedienne, whatever). And while it's amusing when she talks about how much she likes her "jiggly parts," and says things like, "Before the show, what I did to keep in shape was...nothing," the show totally takes it to a whole other level. I mean, the judges make fun of her for eating a lot and hardly an episode goes by without comments, sometimes in voice over, about how much she loves food.

Most women would find this offensive. Niecy, however, totally owns her weight and clearly doesn't care that others comment about it even when a lot of people would see this as one of those situations that's like, "I can make fun of myself but don't you dare make fun of me."

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that Niecy Nash is NOT THAT FAT. Sure, she rocks the T&A like nobody's business but she has a defined waistline! Her stomach is mostly flat! She's just a curvy woman and yes, if she wanted to lose weight I'm sure she could (as opposed to other female celebrities who probably don't have a full pound of fat on their entire bodies), but she by no means needs to. If she didn't have so much natural junk in the trunk she would probably wear a size 6. Maybe she even DOES wear a size 6.

I realize that the judges and hosts probably wouldn't say things if she didn't say them herself, but I really wish the whole thing would just be put to rest. It's like the producers were embarrassed to have a non-size zero in the top 5 so they felt the need to compensate by acknowledging Niecy's size over and over. And over.

I won't even get into how it's likely that the only reason Niecy lasted so long is because she's so awesomely hysterical. Because you know that no one likes large female celebrities unless they're funny. Or Oprah.