So I've told you about my stats and my dancing a few times before, but you've never really seen me. I did a photo shoot today. Enjoy the highlights!
Photos by K. Cupp
27 July, 2014
New Artwork
"Bright Dream" (In the style of Peter Max)
Ink on pointe shoe
"Peacock Feather"
Ink on pointe shoe
23 July, 2014
Managing your look: How to be hipster without overdoing it
**Disclamer--Opinion based**
So there's this look/persona making its rounds... the hipster look. For those of you who don't know, it's sort of a hippie revival, but, like, so much cooler. Google pics of young men who live in Portland, OR to find out more. While some peeps are "true hipster" with their body odor and mustaches and tight kakis and such, the more mildly "hipster" look has become Seventeen magazine cool, just like the rocker look and goth look and surfer look...
I know, I know your not "real" unless you were hipster before it was cool and all that, but I want to talk fashion for a minute. I am not turning this into a fashion blog, I just want to discuss this thing which has been on my mind.
There is this phenomenon in teen girls and young women. My young gum-popping coworker perfectly exemplifies this. This phenomenon entails making (copying) certain fashion trends because many other people wear them and many stores stock them. Said coworker came in to work with this story about how she had bought some pants because they were "cool" and she was going to "force herself to wear them" until she felt comfortable with the new and previously foreign style. The hipster look has become ubiquitous enough that anyone shopping at Target or Forever 21 can come out looking like a pot smoking, music fest loving, free range chicken eating documentary filmmaker.
Because I'm big into sincerity, I advocate caution when taking on a hipster look (unless, of course, you are 100% committed to the hipster lifestyle. Signs that you are a true hipster include drinking locally sourced homemade chai out of mason jars, loving your bicycle but not enough to put on more sensible biking trousers than tight jeans, buying recycled notebooks on principle, playing an obscure instrument like a kazoo and calling yourself a musician, and "liking things before they were cool".)
To avoid being mistaken for a true hipster, be careful with the fashion and follow these tips:
1. Be sparing with your tattoos and piercings. Any tats that contain mustaches or stylized doves are especially hipster. As are septum piercings and gauges (on everyone) and nose cartilage piercings on men.
2. Big/heavy glasses are to be chosen with caution. Especially plastic Ray-Ban frames for non-sunglasses.
3. Be careful with hairstyles including some shaved parts and some longer parts. Men (and ladies, I suppose), watch the beards and 'staches.
4. If you choose any of the styles above, choose ONE. Never all of them.
5. The same concept goes for relatively permanent/rarely replaced clothing and accessories, like your winter coat/boots, backpack, and purse. Choose between zero and one of these items to have in a hipster stye. Keep the rest classic or stylistically ambiguous.
6. Follow basic fashion rules, such as baggy top = fitted bottom and vice versa. One telltale hipster trait is unapologetic sloppiness or disproportion in an effort to look "effortlessly cool" (sorry if that sounded rude).
7. Use t-shirts, shoes, scarves, and jewelry to add hipster accents to your look. Especially hipster items include: plaid big shirts, knit hats, mustache prints, bow ties, chunky framed sunglasses, plain colored Toms, and Converse sneakers. Use these items sparingly, and never more than a couple at a time.
By following these tips, hopefully you can manage your look to be "cool" without being extreme or insincere.
22 July, 2014
A few notes on grammar
My favorite "lovely happy sunshine" Sunday morning show usually has a segment on the English language. This segment, hosted by a gray haired man, details the usage of incorrect English in the everyday speech of the "younger" generations. While the word crimes discussed are most often committed by Gen-Y and younger, it seems to me that the entire country needs a brief course in proper speech.
Here are two common errors and easy corrections.
1. When vs. Whenever
My young, gum-popping coworker says, "Whenever my sister got pregnant with her son, she got really moody."
"When," I correct her.
Misinterpreting my comment as a question, she answers, "In 2009."
People these days seem to believe that "when" and "whenever" are interchangeable. They are not.
"When" should be used when an individual is describing a specific event that happened one or very few times in the past, or when describing an event that is currently happening.
Examples:
"When my sister got pregnant with her son, she became moody."
"When my parents got married, they lived in Hawaii."
"When you get to the store, please pick up some napkins."
"Whenever" should be used when an individual is describing an event that happens frequently. If you can logically insert "always" into a sentence, then you can use the word "whenever."
Examples:
"Whenever I go to the grocery store I seem to forget an important item." (Can be rephrased as "I always seem to forget an important item when I go to the grocery store.")
"Whenever I feed the dog, he runs to his bowl." (Can be rephrased as "The dog always runs to his bowl when I feed him.")
"I'm ready to leave whenever you are." (Can be rephrased, though awkwardly, as "I will always be ready to leave; it's your call when we actually get going.")
Note that it is always appropriate to use "when," even in a "whenever"-appropriate sentence. When in doubt, use "when."
2. Me vs. I
"Do you want to go to the party with Barrack and I?"
This is an example of the misuse of a personal pronoun as an object. This specific example was used on the "lovely happy sunshine" morning show of which I am so fond.
Quick and dirty, here's the rule: "I" is a subject. "Me" is an object. When multiple people are involved, be polite and put yourself last.
Examples of "I" as a subject:
"I am going to the party."
"Tim and I are going to the restaurant."
You would never say "Me am going to the party." So why would anyone ever say "Tim and me are going to the restaurant."?
Examples of "me" as an object:
"Jody is going to make pancakes for me."
"My dog is coming to the park with Celina and me."
The gray-haired host of the grammar segment on the "lovely happy sunshine" morning show says that he believes that some people think that they sound sophisticated when they use "I" as an object. This pattern of speech does not make individuals seem sophisticated. It makes them seem uneducated.
Here are two common errors and easy corrections.
1. When vs. Whenever
My young, gum-popping coworker says, "Whenever my sister got pregnant with her son, she got really moody."
"When," I correct her.
Misinterpreting my comment as a question, she answers, "In 2009."
People these days seem to believe that "when" and "whenever" are interchangeable. They are not.
"When" should be used when an individual is describing a specific event that happened one or very few times in the past, or when describing an event that is currently happening.
Examples:
"When my sister got pregnant with her son, she became moody."
"When my parents got married, they lived in Hawaii."
"When you get to the store, please pick up some napkins."
"Whenever" should be used when an individual is describing an event that happens frequently. If you can logically insert "always" into a sentence, then you can use the word "whenever."
Examples:
"Whenever I go to the grocery store I seem to forget an important item." (Can be rephrased as "I always seem to forget an important item when I go to the grocery store.")
"Whenever I feed the dog, he runs to his bowl." (Can be rephrased as "The dog always runs to his bowl when I feed him.")
"I'm ready to leave whenever you are." (Can be rephrased, though awkwardly, as "I will always be ready to leave; it's your call when we actually get going.")
Note that it is always appropriate to use "when," even in a "whenever"-appropriate sentence. When in doubt, use "when."
2. Me vs. I
"Do you want to go to the party with Barrack and I?"
This is an example of the misuse of a personal pronoun as an object. This specific example was used on the "lovely happy sunshine" morning show of which I am so fond.
Quick and dirty, here's the rule: "I" is a subject. "Me" is an object. When multiple people are involved, be polite and put yourself last.
Examples of "I" as a subject:
"I am going to the party."
"Tim and I are going to the restaurant."
You would never say "Me am going to the party." So why would anyone ever say "Tim and me are going to the restaurant."?
Examples of "me" as an object:
"Jody is going to make pancakes for me."
"My dog is coming to the park with Celina and me."
The gray-haired host of the grammar segment on the "lovely happy sunshine" morning show says that he believes that some people think that they sound sophisticated when they use "I" as an object. This pattern of speech does not make individuals seem sophisticated. It makes them seem uneducated.
15 July, 2014
Just calm down about body image already!
So this image has been circulating the internet for quite a while. In a non judgmental world, it would merely call attention to the difference in the body types of the models used in each of the campaigns. This benign compare and contrast is fascinating in itself. In our real (and generally less kind) world, this image has been accompanied by quite a comments such as "VS models too skinny," "Real women have curves, " and "Finally! You don't have to starve yourself to be attractive."
I understand that the Victoria's Secret models put quite a lot of effort into maintaining their figures and that the Dove models do not. I also understand that the VS love my body campaign has more do to do with feeling sexy in expensive and generally ill-fitting undergarments, while the Dove campaign is supposed to be about body image (but is really trying to get consumers to buy soap). Both of these facts seem lost to the masses who view and comment on the image.
I agree with the assertions that 1. many body types can be considered healthy and beautiful and that 2. the mainstream fashion and beauty industry generally lacks diversity in shapes and sizes. I disagree with the vast majority of the comments that viewers of the image have left. While I think the VS models represent a shape unattainable by most people, I do not think they are too thin. I am well aware that women without curves do in fact exist and are not imaginary. Women have never been forced to starve themselves to be attractive (a subjective standard). Generally people who are actually, legitimately starving (concentration camps, African famines) are not attractive (by any standard).
I am also very disappointed and mildly offended by the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. They endeavor to show a "variety" of women with "real" bodies. Where is the representation of my body? You already know my stats from a previous post, 5'3", ~95lbs. I am petite. I also have the common ballet dancer/ hella-athlete-from-waist-down body type (google Maria Kochetova) with a thinner torso and very muscular legs. In relation to the standard of my own body, the women of the Dove campaign, with their model-tall and size 6 to 10 frames, are giants. They represent a single body type. This does provide a contrast from others, like the VS models. However, I am appalled by the implication that anything smaller and less curvy is not "real." I exist. My fellow dancers exist. VS models exist. The beautiful Lizzie Velasquez, who lives with a medical condition that keeps her from holding body fat, exists. (Find out more about Lizzie's story here: http://www.aboutlizzie.com/#!lizzies-story/ccm8)
I'm all for empowering women. I'm all for health. I'm all for feeling beautiful with what you have. Just be careful not to empower one group by alienating another.
This image has been around too. The answer to the proper punctuation-lacking question (though it is clearly rhetorical) is the mid 1960's, following Twiggy's rise to fame. This image does not address pre-WWII fashion standards, which also favored more Keira Knightley-esque figures, thanks to Coco Chanel and her designs-for-long-narrow-androgynous bodies. While the fashionable body type of the day fluctuates for reasons completely unbeknownst to me, I don't think that "hotness" can be definitively pinned down. It's more of a personal thing.
As an individual (and a "skinny girl") who likes girls, I find Nicole, Keira, and Kirsten (three rightmost images on the top panel) very attractive. I've got a thing for Keira, so I'd call her the "hottest." I don't find any of the women pictured on either panel unattractive, however I do think that Heidi's boobs are gross and Marilyn is a little thick for my personal tastes.
In general, I disagree with the individual who created this image and its wording. There is no universal standard of "hotness" or even attractiveness, and it certainly is not tied solely to body type and shape.
12 July, 2014
Freakonomics, as currently applied to my life
You've heard of that book, "Freakonomics," where the authors list two completely separate things (like car seats and DVD players) and then explain how they are alike (car DVD players make kids sit still and watch, so you don't necessarily have to put a little one in a carseat if s/he is older than 2 yrs and sitting still). I've been making a few strange connections lately, and I think everyone ought to see things as I do...
1. How is ballroom dance like Guitar Hero?
In guitar hero, one must press the correct buttons on the game controller at a precise time in order to make the correct sound and earn points in the game. The buttons that the player must push are displayed on the game screen before they need to be pushed. If the player jumps the gun and hits the buttons too early, the game will make an unpleasant sound and points will not be earned. Hitting the buttons too late will result in "dropping notes" and the game will be equally short lived.
In my ballroom partnership, I am the follow. My partner is the lead. Once he makes his movement, I have a precise amount of time (according to the dance we are doing and the music we are using) to mirror his movement. If I move too quickly, I am encroaching on his lead and thus messing up the dance. If I take too long, I am dropping steps and putting the dance in equal danger of failure.
One way to practice the ever-important rhythm that makes ballroom dancing successful and beautiful: play more Guitar Hero.
2. How is Lady Gaga like Spring Awakening?
(You know I do research on culture and popular music, so bear with me here.)
Lady Gaga's music video for Alejandro (the extended 8 minute version) is...wow. Intense. Weird. For some reason, I really like the song (It's a samba and it's stuck in my head), but similarly to most current pop hits, I really don't like the meaning of a lot of the lyrics (drug and kinky sex references).
The lyric "Don't call my name, don't call my name, Alejandro," could have a few interpretations. It could be literal (dude, quit saying my name, leave me alone). It could also be more figurative (Stop being so appealing, you're arousing me when I don't want to be aroused). The imagery in the music video (which can be a little disturbing) features Gaga in a nun outfit singing the "don't call my name" lines, then showing what appear to be flashbacks of a mostly nude Gaga and male dancer making movements suggestive of highly active sex of various types.
Once the shock has worn off a little, I can see the beginnings of a universal archetype of the struggle between human desire and morality taking form.
Spring Awakening is a musical (once on Broadway starring Lea Michelle) that seems very clean cut and pleasant...until the themes of love, sex, and morality come out and all Hell breaks loose. Honestly-- the girls are wearing these cute little (modest) white ruffled dresses, and then one of them basically rips hers off (she's got on a nude leotard, briefs, and tights) and starts grinding on a male actor wearing the same modesty garments.
Maybe it's a stretch, but I found both of these presentations to have the exact same themes, though they were presented in the exact opposite order (Gaga: shock value first, theme second; Spring Awakening: theme first, shock value second). Which was more shocking? Seems too close to call.
3. How is Diet Coke like the HIV virus?
Most diet sodas have zero calories, according to the nutrition facts. Most also have an icon on the packaging that reads "zero calories per serving." This wording means that if one is to drink one serving of the beverage, one will be consuming effectively no calories. This DOES NOT mean that if one drinks more than the amount specified as one serving the individual will be consuming zero calories. The fractional calorie in one serving is multiplied by the number of servings consumed, and if enough is consumed, calculable calories have been ingested.
Sound a little nit-picky? Try this next one on for size.
I saw a news story about an infant girl who was born with HIV. She was immediately treated, and by the time she was a toddler, she was considered cured. Her blood tests showed that she was no longer afflicted with the virus. Her aggressive treatment was scaled back. By age 4, blood tests showed evidence of the infection again. It became clear that her body was never completely free of the HIV virus. With repeated aggressive treatments, the virus became so "dilute" in her system that it was undetectable in her blood test, leading scientists to declare that her HIV was no longer existent. Just like some claim that Diet Coke has zero calories, only with much bigger consequences.
...And there you have it. Hopefully more will come, as I experience them.
1. How is ballroom dance like Guitar Hero?
In guitar hero, one must press the correct buttons on the game controller at a precise time in order to make the correct sound and earn points in the game. The buttons that the player must push are displayed on the game screen before they need to be pushed. If the player jumps the gun and hits the buttons too early, the game will make an unpleasant sound and points will not be earned. Hitting the buttons too late will result in "dropping notes" and the game will be equally short lived.
In my ballroom partnership, I am the follow. My partner is the lead. Once he makes his movement, I have a precise amount of time (according to the dance we are doing and the music we are using) to mirror his movement. If I move too quickly, I am encroaching on his lead and thus messing up the dance. If I take too long, I am dropping steps and putting the dance in equal danger of failure.
One way to practice the ever-important rhythm that makes ballroom dancing successful and beautiful: play more Guitar Hero.
2. How is Lady Gaga like Spring Awakening?
(You know I do research on culture and popular music, so bear with me here.)
Lady Gaga's music video for Alejandro (the extended 8 minute version) is...wow. Intense. Weird. For some reason, I really like the song (It's a samba and it's stuck in my head), but similarly to most current pop hits, I really don't like the meaning of a lot of the lyrics (drug and kinky sex references).
The lyric "Don't call my name, don't call my name, Alejandro," could have a few interpretations. It could be literal (dude, quit saying my name, leave me alone). It could also be more figurative (Stop being so appealing, you're arousing me when I don't want to be aroused). The imagery in the music video (which can be a little disturbing) features Gaga in a nun outfit singing the "don't call my name" lines, then showing what appear to be flashbacks of a mostly nude Gaga and male dancer making movements suggestive of highly active sex of various types.
Once the shock has worn off a little, I can see the beginnings of a universal archetype of the struggle between human desire and morality taking form.
Spring Awakening is a musical (once on Broadway starring Lea Michelle) that seems very clean cut and pleasant...until the themes of love, sex, and morality come out and all Hell breaks loose. Honestly-- the girls are wearing these cute little (modest) white ruffled dresses, and then one of them basically rips hers off (she's got on a nude leotard, briefs, and tights) and starts grinding on a male actor wearing the same modesty garments.
Maybe it's a stretch, but I found both of these presentations to have the exact same themes, though they were presented in the exact opposite order (Gaga: shock value first, theme second; Spring Awakening: theme first, shock value second). Which was more shocking? Seems too close to call.
3. How is Diet Coke like the HIV virus?
Most diet sodas have zero calories, according to the nutrition facts. Most also have an icon on the packaging that reads "zero calories per serving." This wording means that if one is to drink one serving of the beverage, one will be consuming effectively no calories. This DOES NOT mean that if one drinks more than the amount specified as one serving the individual will be consuming zero calories. The fractional calorie in one serving is multiplied by the number of servings consumed, and if enough is consumed, calculable calories have been ingested.
Sound a little nit-picky? Try this next one on for size.
I saw a news story about an infant girl who was born with HIV. She was immediately treated, and by the time she was a toddler, she was considered cured. Her blood tests showed that she was no longer afflicted with the virus. Her aggressive treatment was scaled back. By age 4, blood tests showed evidence of the infection again. It became clear that her body was never completely free of the HIV virus. With repeated aggressive treatments, the virus became so "dilute" in her system that it was undetectable in her blood test, leading scientists to declare that her HIV was no longer existent. Just like some claim that Diet Coke has zero calories, only with much bigger consequences.
...And there you have it. Hopefully more will come, as I experience them.
06 March, 2014
My Current Pet Peeve: Fake Sushi
Several months ago, I was watching a party planning segment on the Today Show. One of the party themes was a Pirates of the Caribbean birthday bash for children (older elementary school). I love the Pirates of the Caribbean movie franchise, and I was pretty impressed with most of the decorations and ideas. However, when it came to the party food, I got upset. One of the snacks shown (alongside goldfish crackers and blue jello) was fake sushi. It was basically a platter of banana slices and cylindrical rice krispy treats wrapped in fruit roll up and decorated with brightly colored candies. First of all, that combination of foods does not sound tasty to me. Second, what does sushi have to do with Pirates of the Caribbean? Third, and most important, what on Earth is wrong with real sushi? Why do we need fake sushi? Is this a suggestion that children should not eat fish? Or vegetables? Or rice? Is this a suggestion that children should not be exposed to new, healthy, and delicious foods? I started eating sushi at age 8. If I was a child presented with fake sushi at a birthday party, I would be offended.
I was reading Seventeen magazine the other day, and you know what there was a recipe for? Fake sushi. This snack was made up of banana slices spread with peanut butter and rolled in rice krispies. Yes, peanut butter, bananas, and cereal does sound tasty. But that's something I would want to eat in a bowl with a spoon. Forming these foods into "sushi" seems like a waste of time. Seventeen magazine is supposedly marketed to girls ages 15 to 21 (I know younger girls read it, but they are not supposed to be the target audience). I would like to think that most teenagers and young 20-somethings would be confident and educated enough to eat (or at least taste/try) real sushi and not need a euphemistic breakfast snack to make them feel sophisticated.
I also think that this fake sushi craze is slightly rude to Japanese culture. It further objectifies it and makes it a novelty for American audiences.
So here's what I want to see: Introduce your kids to real food. Don't patronize them by giving them fake food. That behavior is unkind to Japanese culture and unkind to your children.
I was reading Seventeen magazine the other day, and you know what there was a recipe for? Fake sushi. This snack was made up of banana slices spread with peanut butter and rolled in rice krispies. Yes, peanut butter, bananas, and cereal does sound tasty. But that's something I would want to eat in a bowl with a spoon. Forming these foods into "sushi" seems like a waste of time. Seventeen magazine is supposedly marketed to girls ages 15 to 21 (I know younger girls read it, but they are not supposed to be the target audience). I would like to think that most teenagers and young 20-somethings would be confident and educated enough to eat (or at least taste/try) real sushi and not need a euphemistic breakfast snack to make them feel sophisticated.
I also think that this fake sushi craze is slightly rude to Japanese culture. It further objectifies it and makes it a novelty for American audiences.
So here's what I want to see: Introduce your kids to real food. Don't patronize them by giving them fake food. That behavior is unkind to Japanese culture and unkind to your children.
02 March, 2014
At The Oscars...
The Academy Awards are not a program to honor the "best" movie of the year. Or the "best" actor/actress. The Oscars are moment for celebrities and others in the film industry to get dressed up, see someone try to be entertaining as host, and view the often incomprehensible results of some random elderly white men's vote about this years films.
A lot of things go into consideration when the "academy" (an anonymous group of mostly white males over age 50 who have some sort of ties to the film industry--most are ex-producers) vote. In addition to the obvious viewing of this year's films, there are the personal lives and other projects of the actors, the bribes the academy members may or may not receive, and the political correctness of certain films in the current climate.
My virtual friend, one of the male hosts on the "lovely happy sunshine" Sunday morning human interest news show, talked about why Matthew McConaughey is probably going to win best actor. He got a lot of press when he lost all the weight to play his dying character in Dallas Buyers Club. He also played an AIDS patient who comes to accept the ideas of homosexuality and gender nonconformity after befriending some of his fellow AIDS patients. He was also doing very well on his detective themed cable show while the academy voting was going on. So, the stars seem to have aligned to give Mr. McConaughey the best chance of winning.
All the cast members of 12 Years a Slave have a good chance too. Mostly because the theme of the movie makes it politically incorrect not to support the actors (don't get me wrong, it looks like a well done, moving story too).
After a few years of watching the "boring" looking films win best picture, I've stopped expecting too much from the Oscars. The hosts and the outfits are my favorite parts, so with Ellen DeGeneres and JLaw there to entertain me, I'm good to go no matter who wins. My advice to everyone else: sit back, relax, and be glad that you don't have to wear all that makeup and hairspray. And dig in to your snacks.
A lot of things go into consideration when the "academy" (an anonymous group of mostly white males over age 50 who have some sort of ties to the film industry--most are ex-producers) vote. In addition to the obvious viewing of this year's films, there are the personal lives and other projects of the actors, the bribes the academy members may or may not receive, and the political correctness of certain films in the current climate.
My virtual friend, one of the male hosts on the "lovely happy sunshine" Sunday morning human interest news show, talked about why Matthew McConaughey is probably going to win best actor. He got a lot of press when he lost all the weight to play his dying character in Dallas Buyers Club. He also played an AIDS patient who comes to accept the ideas of homosexuality and gender nonconformity after befriending some of his fellow AIDS patients. He was also doing very well on his detective themed cable show while the academy voting was going on. So, the stars seem to have aligned to give Mr. McConaughey the best chance of winning.
All the cast members of 12 Years a Slave have a good chance too. Mostly because the theme of the movie makes it politically incorrect not to support the actors (don't get me wrong, it looks like a well done, moving story too).
After a few years of watching the "boring" looking films win best picture, I've stopped expecting too much from the Oscars. The hosts and the outfits are my favorite parts, so with Ellen DeGeneres and JLaw there to entertain me, I'm good to go no matter who wins. My advice to everyone else: sit back, relax, and be glad that you don't have to wear all that makeup and hairspray. And dig in to your snacks.
A thought on sterilization and eugenics...
I'm taking a women's studies class called Beauty, Body, and Power. Right now it is focusing on people with extraordinary bodies (formerly known as freaks) and freak shows in the 1840-1940 era. One of the reasons that freak shows ceased to be popular is because of the eugenics/social Darwinism movement. For those of you who don't know, eugenics is the idea of keeping certain types of people from reproducing in order to create a stronger human race. The people who were to be kept from reproducing were mainly people with disabilities (mental and physical) that may be hereditary. As the eugenics movement was popular around 1900, people did not have a good idea of which abnormalities were genetic and which were not. The major negative that came from the eugenics movement was the nazi regime attempting to rid Germany of Jews, homosexuals, and people with disabilities by killing them and sending them to concentration camps during the holocaust.
I've always known that I had a morbid curiosity for things that make other cringe. I really enjoy learning about this topic. However, my instructor said something in class today that made me think very hard about an opinion that I've had for a long time. She said that it was "obviously completely immoral and wrong to support the sterilization of any person with a disability."
I don't entirely agree with this statement. I know that my instructor is slightly dramatic, and she was trying to impress upon the class the inherent wrongness of the eugenics movement. But I do take slight issue with what she said. I find the sterilization (that is, the removal of certain organs like the uterus or the taking of certain medications to reduce sex drive, ability to conceive, and ability to produce/ejaculate sperm) of certain individuals logical in certain situations. Therefore, I think that sometimes it may be a good idea.
Let me give you a few examples. When I was in high school, I did community service helping out in an ISP (Intensive Support Program) class. The students in this class were between the ages of 15 and 21, and they had a diverse assortment of mental and physical disabilities. The mental age range of the students in the class seemed to be between infancy and ten years old. One female student, though a teen, functioned as a baby. She had no bowel or bladder control, was non-communicative, could not feed herself, and could not move herself without assistance. Because of her biological age, this girl was going through puberty. She had a menstrual cycle, so she was probably able to conceive. I believe it would have been easier for her caregivers if she had been given medication or had surgery to stop her development into a woman. She would not have had a menstrual cycle to deal with. She may have maintained a more childlike physique, making her easier to care for. And, God forbid, if she was ever raped, she would not be able to get pregnant.
Another student was a young man who was over six feet tall and functioned at about the level of a two to three year old. He was nonverbal, but used short words and phrases in American Sign Language to express certain things like "hungry." Because of this young man's physical body, he was already difficult to care for. He could walk, but was unsteady like a young child. If he fell, it was hard to get him up again. He had also gone through puberty, and had facial hair that his home caregivers would shave for him. Additionally, this young man had a sex drive. He would often touch himself, and his caregivers would redirect him to a different task, like coloring or doing a puzzle. Occasionally this young man would make a pass at a female caregiver. It was always laughed off, but it was clear that sometimes the caregivers were uncomfortable. I believe that in this situation, the student should have been on medication to reduce his sex drive. If he could have been put on some sort of hormone therapy prior to going through puberty, perhaps his body size and sex drive would have remained more childlike, therefore making it easier to care for him.
With this young man, I would feel a little bad about taking pleasure away from him. However, his mental capacity did not allow for him to understand that there is a time and place for sexual exploration. There was no possibility of him "growing out" of this phase as he matured. Perhaps operant conditioning of behavior-reward systems could help him reduce his habits, but I think he would have functioned better without a sex drive to begin with. If hormone treatment or other medication had been applied, this young man would not have had the habit of masturbating in public, therefore making him easier to interact with. His female caregivers would also have felt more comfortable with him. Additionally, if this young man ever ended up having sex with female, it would be unlikely for conception to be possible.
I am not trying to say that all people with disabilities make bad parents or should not reproduce. However, in most situations with individuals severe physical and mental disabilities, I do not think that these individuals are well equipped to care for their children. Therefore, I think that in most situations, it is better if they abstain from having children.
I think that when these individuals abstain from having children, they also reduce the likelihood of passing on genetic abnormalities to their children. I am not saying that every child with a severely disabled parent is doomed to have genetic issues, but it is much more likely for an unhealthy or high risk pregnancy to take place when one or both parents are severely disabled. In these situations, the mother and the fetus are at risk of harm or death. This is not a good situation. If the mother is not intellectually capable of understanding the pain and discomfort she is experiencing, it falls to caregivers to make important and difficult medical decisions. All of this could be avoided if the individuals in question were made unable to conceive.
Overall, I know it's a difficult and controversial thing. I'm not saying that sterilization is great in all circumstances. I certainly don't want to remove all disabled individuals from the population as the eugenics movement suggested. All I'm saying is that it is an option that I think I support under certain circumstances. And it's something worth thinking about.
I've always known that I had a morbid curiosity for things that make other cringe. I really enjoy learning about this topic. However, my instructor said something in class today that made me think very hard about an opinion that I've had for a long time. She said that it was "obviously completely immoral and wrong to support the sterilization of any person with a disability."
I don't entirely agree with this statement. I know that my instructor is slightly dramatic, and she was trying to impress upon the class the inherent wrongness of the eugenics movement. But I do take slight issue with what she said. I find the sterilization (that is, the removal of certain organs like the uterus or the taking of certain medications to reduce sex drive, ability to conceive, and ability to produce/ejaculate sperm) of certain individuals logical in certain situations. Therefore, I think that sometimes it may be a good idea.
Let me give you a few examples. When I was in high school, I did community service helping out in an ISP (Intensive Support Program) class. The students in this class were between the ages of 15 and 21, and they had a diverse assortment of mental and physical disabilities. The mental age range of the students in the class seemed to be between infancy and ten years old. One female student, though a teen, functioned as a baby. She had no bowel or bladder control, was non-communicative, could not feed herself, and could not move herself without assistance. Because of her biological age, this girl was going through puberty. She had a menstrual cycle, so she was probably able to conceive. I believe it would have been easier for her caregivers if she had been given medication or had surgery to stop her development into a woman. She would not have had a menstrual cycle to deal with. She may have maintained a more childlike physique, making her easier to care for. And, God forbid, if she was ever raped, she would not be able to get pregnant.
Another student was a young man who was over six feet tall and functioned at about the level of a two to three year old. He was nonverbal, but used short words and phrases in American Sign Language to express certain things like "hungry." Because of this young man's physical body, he was already difficult to care for. He could walk, but was unsteady like a young child. If he fell, it was hard to get him up again. He had also gone through puberty, and had facial hair that his home caregivers would shave for him. Additionally, this young man had a sex drive. He would often touch himself, and his caregivers would redirect him to a different task, like coloring or doing a puzzle. Occasionally this young man would make a pass at a female caregiver. It was always laughed off, but it was clear that sometimes the caregivers were uncomfortable. I believe that in this situation, the student should have been on medication to reduce his sex drive. If he could have been put on some sort of hormone therapy prior to going through puberty, perhaps his body size and sex drive would have remained more childlike, therefore making it easier to care for him.
With this young man, I would feel a little bad about taking pleasure away from him. However, his mental capacity did not allow for him to understand that there is a time and place for sexual exploration. There was no possibility of him "growing out" of this phase as he matured. Perhaps operant conditioning of behavior-reward systems could help him reduce his habits, but I think he would have functioned better without a sex drive to begin with. If hormone treatment or other medication had been applied, this young man would not have had the habit of masturbating in public, therefore making him easier to interact with. His female caregivers would also have felt more comfortable with him. Additionally, if this young man ever ended up having sex with female, it would be unlikely for conception to be possible.
I am not trying to say that all people with disabilities make bad parents or should not reproduce. However, in most situations with individuals severe physical and mental disabilities, I do not think that these individuals are well equipped to care for their children. Therefore, I think that in most situations, it is better if they abstain from having children.
I think that when these individuals abstain from having children, they also reduce the likelihood of passing on genetic abnormalities to their children. I am not saying that every child with a severely disabled parent is doomed to have genetic issues, but it is much more likely for an unhealthy or high risk pregnancy to take place when one or both parents are severely disabled. In these situations, the mother and the fetus are at risk of harm or death. This is not a good situation. If the mother is not intellectually capable of understanding the pain and discomfort she is experiencing, it falls to caregivers to make important and difficult medical decisions. All of this could be avoided if the individuals in question were made unable to conceive.
Overall, I know it's a difficult and controversial thing. I'm not saying that sterilization is great in all circumstances. I certainly don't want to remove all disabled individuals from the population as the eugenics movement suggested. All I'm saying is that it is an option that I think I support under certain circumstances. And it's something worth thinking about.
24 February, 2014
Why Fun. uses explicit lyrics
One of my favorite bands is Fun. It is comprised of three young men, and they sing about things in the everyday lives of young people.
Here's an excerpt from the lyrics of "We are Young:"
"Give me a second I,
I need to get my story straight
My friends are in the bathroom getting higher than the Empire State
My lover she's waiting for me just across the bar
My seat's been taken by some sunglasses asking 'bout a scar..."
The first time I listened to the song and paid attention to the lyrics, I was slightly appalled. This guy just said that his friends are doing drugs. In my opinion, that automatically makes the song family inappropriate and therefore not quite radio appropriate. I thought that maybe I shouldn't be listening to the song. Or the group. Then I remembered that I am over 18 and as a legal adult, I can self censor and make good choices.
Then I really thought about that lyric. "My friends are in the bathroom getting higher than the Empire State." The singer says "my friends," not "I" or "we." So I can infer that he is not doing drugs. Good choice.
Later in the song, the lyrics "So if by the time the bar closes/ and you feel like falling down/ I'll carry you home/ Tonight" show up. I may be stretching things, but if you squint, that sounds an awful lot like a message discouraging drinking and driving and encouraging the buddy system when leaving bars late at night. Another good choice!
I do think that the content of the song makes it inappropriate for anyone younger than about 14. However, I think that it approaches issues in a healthier way than for example Far East Movement's "Like a G6." Now that I understand it, I really enjoy "We are Young."
My absolute favorite Fun. song is "Some Nights." I love the lyrics that describe not quite understanding who you are. I think it's an excellent depiction of the chaotic process of growing up. Like "We are Young," there are a few semi-explicit lyrics that deal with the pressures of life. "Some Nights" is different from "We are Young" because it has profanity in it. Just one f-bomb. Here's the video (watch it, it's good!):
Here's an excerpt from the lyrics of "We are Young:"
"Give me a second I,
I need to get my story straight
My friends are in the bathroom getting higher than the Empire State
My lover she's waiting for me just across the bar
My seat's been taken by some sunglasses asking 'bout a scar..."
The first time I listened to the song and paid attention to the lyrics, I was slightly appalled. This guy just said that his friends are doing drugs. In my opinion, that automatically makes the song family inappropriate and therefore not quite radio appropriate. I thought that maybe I shouldn't be listening to the song. Or the group. Then I remembered that I am over 18 and as a legal adult, I can self censor and make good choices.
Then I really thought about that lyric. "My friends are in the bathroom getting higher than the Empire State." The singer says "my friends," not "I" or "we." So I can infer that he is not doing drugs. Good choice.
Later in the song, the lyrics "So if by the time the bar closes/ and you feel like falling down/ I'll carry you home/ Tonight" show up. I may be stretching things, but if you squint, that sounds an awful lot like a message discouraging drinking and driving and encouraging the buddy system when leaving bars late at night. Another good choice!
I do think that the content of the song makes it inappropriate for anyone younger than about 14. However, I think that it approaches issues in a healthier way than for example Far East Movement's "Like a G6." Now that I understand it, I really enjoy "We are Young."
My absolute favorite Fun. song is "Some Nights." I love the lyrics that describe not quite understanding who you are. I think it's an excellent depiction of the chaotic process of growing up. Like "We are Young," there are a few semi-explicit lyrics that deal with the pressures of life. "Some Nights" is different from "We are Young" because it has profanity in it. Just one f-bomb. Here's the video (watch it, it's good!):
Did you catch it? "Who the f--- wants to die alone?/ All dried up in the desert sun." That f-word was not totally necessary in that sentence. Any other one syllable euphemistic word would have worked, like hell or heck. So why go with the f-bomb that makes the song completely family and radio inappropriate? A couple of reasons. First, that is how young people (high school and college aged folks) these days seem to speak. There are more adjectives in the English language than f-cking, but evidently teens don't know this. Second, I think it may be a way to appeal to an older audience. The musicians are all in their late 20's to early 30's. Their songs are deep and thoughtful, but their pop rhythms make them almost too appealing. I think the f-word was included as a "back off" to the middle school and younger folks who wanted to "fan" the band. I think Fun. made a clever move to define their own fan base as the group of people who the songs are written about-- young adults.
Fun. is also straddling a tough line with their image. The genre they claim is "indie pop." Like good hipsters, the musicians of Fun. are too cool to go mainstream pop. But like all musicians, they want to make it big, be on the radio, and make money. The same thing happened to Grizzly Bear when they were on the Twilight Saga: New Moon soundtrack. Nice indie band accidentally goes mainstream in an attempt to get themselves known.
So when pop hits radio stations censor the f-word in "Some Nights" and play it on the radio, are they doing the band a service? Yes, because people hear the song on the radio then buy it on iTunes. No, because they are removing a lyric that was placed for a reason, and that reason was to guard against exactly what pop hits radio stations do: make mainstream stars.
21 February, 2014
I think Google is Corrupt
When I google the exact URL of this blog, I do not find this blog. I find Pinterest. I find my artwork that people have posted on Pinterest. They have been kind enough to state that this blog is where they found the artwork in the text below the picture of the pin. So when I google quoththeblackbirdbyjill.blogspot.com, I get results leading me to a website that is not the website I just looked up.
You know why this happens? Because Pinterest is a big website and my blog is just a baby website. Pinterest pays Google lots of money to put its results first, even though pinterest has very little to do with my blog. And my blog does not pay any money to anyone, because I use the internet as an outlet for my free speech. Literally.
I was browsing the internet (or "interwebs," as my friend calls it) for a newspaper article. One of my classes requires each student to submit a newspaper article each week. I wanted some kind of cynical pop culture article about media influence, so I googled "social control in the media."(I googled it without quotation marks). You know what the first result was? Facebook. The first result was Facebook. Google had scrambled my words into "social media control," and it was trying to point me to the terms and conditions of being a member of Facebook. Not what I was looking for. Again, I got these results because Facebook pays Google to put their page first. I had a really hard time finding an article that I liked. I think it's because small newspapers that publish interesting articles don't have the throwaway funds to pay Google off.
When Bing became popular, I stood by Google because I had first learned to use the internet with Google. Google was part of my life. But now I feel duped and betrayed. Google, you have lost my faith. I may be shopping for a new search engine. Shopping in a metaphorical sense, because my money will never be going to further my free speech.
You know why this happens? Because Pinterest is a big website and my blog is just a baby website. Pinterest pays Google lots of money to put its results first, even though pinterest has very little to do with my blog. And my blog does not pay any money to anyone, because I use the internet as an outlet for my free speech. Literally.
I was browsing the internet (or "interwebs," as my friend calls it) for a newspaper article. One of my classes requires each student to submit a newspaper article each week. I wanted some kind of cynical pop culture article about media influence, so I googled "social control in the media."(I googled it without quotation marks). You know what the first result was? Facebook. The first result was Facebook. Google had scrambled my words into "social media control," and it was trying to point me to the terms and conditions of being a member of Facebook. Not what I was looking for. Again, I got these results because Facebook pays Google to put their page first. I had a really hard time finding an article that I liked. I think it's because small newspapers that publish interesting articles don't have the throwaway funds to pay Google off.
When Bing became popular, I stood by Google because I had first learned to use the internet with Google. Google was part of my life. But now I feel duped and betrayed. Google, you have lost my faith. I may be shopping for a new search engine. Shopping in a metaphorical sense, because my money will never be going to further my free speech.
Rethink your Children's Hospital Donations...
One of the radio stations I listen to is currently hosting "Radiothon," a fundraiser for UNM Children's hospital. The webpage for this program states that most of the money raised goes to purchase medical equipment. Nothing wrong with that. That part is wonderful.
Radiothon and many other children's hospital charity PSAs annoy me because they encourage the public to donate "stuff" or money to buy "stuff" to give to children in hospital. This "stuff" is almost always toys, specifically stuffed animals. Kids in hospital do not need stuffed animals. I was in hospital for a few weeks as a 13-year-old, and I think I received about 7 stuffed animals during that time frame. That's approximately one animal every two or three days. Way too many animals.
If you are considering donating to one of these "stuff" charities or starting one as a project for girl scouts, I urge you to reconsider. Here's a list of things that children's hospitals (and children in hospital) need and do not need.
NEED:
1. New clothing like pajamas, sweats, bathrobes, and socks. Hospital gowns usually do not fit children well. They are also uncomfortable and too light to wear alone. Many people are admitted to hospital through emergency rooms, so they do not bring clothes with them. Parents often wish to stay with their children while they are in hospital, so it is difficult for them to leave and get clothing.
2. Bedclothes like blankets, pillowcases, and sleeping bags. Most hospital blankets are rather unpleasant colors and textures. Having higher quality and more fun bedclothes can comfort children who are on bedrest and cannot leave their rooms.
3. Books, CDs, movies, magazines, and video games. These items are easily shared between children without getting broken or losing pieces (one of the main hazards of toys in public spaces). They are also calm (don't cause undue exertion) and don't carry too many germs as the covers can be easily sanitized.
4. Boom boxes, stereos, computers, TVs, gaming systems, and DVD players. Generally the same reasons as above.
5. Batteries. For portable stereos, etc.
6. Snacks like fresh fruit, rice krispy treats, capri sun juice bags, and sugarless chewing gum. Many children in hospital are on specialized diets, but these things are ok with most diets. Kids like them too. Hospital food is not that good.
7. Toiletries like toothpaste and shampoo. Nurses are the medication nazis, but they are not the personal hygiene nazis (they also don't really care if you stay up until 3 in the morning watching Spider-Man). Having fun toiletries can help kids stay up to date with their hygiene routines even in unfamiliar places. Scented hand sanitizer is great too; it encourages kids to kill germs. Hospital hanitizer is basically pure rubbing alcohol that smells and stings.
8. Craft supplies like paper, glue, tape, crayons, markers, stickers, beads, etc. They are entertaining, encourage brainwork and creativity, and are disposable to reduce clutter and germ sharing.
9. People to hang out with. In particular, 8 to 14 year old girls like to hang out with other tween and teen girls. It is great if these people have age appropriate conversation starters that do not have to do with why the child is in hospital. "Nice hat," is not necessarily a great way to get on with a child with cancer. "Have you seen the Michael Bolton/Jack Sparrow music video?" usually is a better bet for a young teen. People who sing/play music or can provide other entertainment like craft tutorials are a bonus.
DO NOT NEED:
1. Stuffed animals. Kids already have stuffed animals. They have favorites. These favorites are usually already at the hospital with the kids. They do not need more animals. Soft toys carry germs and allergens that are difficult to get rid of. Some children with breathing problems are not allowed to have stuffed animals because of this. When someone comes to hospital passing out animals, these children are left out.
2. Toys with multiple small parts like complex board games and jigsaw puzzles. The children who are mature enough to play with these usually just end up disappointed that there are pieces missing.
3. Things divided into gendered categories. This one is a little harder to explain. Sometimes people come to hospital with stuff to give out (for example, stuffed animals), and they have two bags: one for girls and one for boys. The girls bag has pink stuff, and the boys bag has blue stuff. Or someone will come by with Barbie paraphernalia and Hot Wheels. Kids in hospital are already put down and categorized so much; they do not need to have gender stereotypes shoved at them too. It's better to bring some feminine options, some masculine options, and some gender neutral options (or only gender neutral options) and let it be a free for all.
4. Candy, homemade foods (especially baked goods), and things that need refrigeration. These items usually do not comply with hospital diets, and their ingredients and freshness can be difficult to ascertain. There are not usually refrigerators that patients can easily use.
5. Sympathy. There's a fine line between care and going too far. Don't go too far. It is not appreciated.
Radiothon and many other children's hospital charity PSAs annoy me because they encourage the public to donate "stuff" or money to buy "stuff" to give to children in hospital. This "stuff" is almost always toys, specifically stuffed animals. Kids in hospital do not need stuffed animals. I was in hospital for a few weeks as a 13-year-old, and I think I received about 7 stuffed animals during that time frame. That's approximately one animal every two or three days. Way too many animals.
If you are considering donating to one of these "stuff" charities or starting one as a project for girl scouts, I urge you to reconsider. Here's a list of things that children's hospitals (and children in hospital) need and do not need.
NEED:
1. New clothing like pajamas, sweats, bathrobes, and socks. Hospital gowns usually do not fit children well. They are also uncomfortable and too light to wear alone. Many people are admitted to hospital through emergency rooms, so they do not bring clothes with them. Parents often wish to stay with their children while they are in hospital, so it is difficult for them to leave and get clothing.
2. Bedclothes like blankets, pillowcases, and sleeping bags. Most hospital blankets are rather unpleasant colors and textures. Having higher quality and more fun bedclothes can comfort children who are on bedrest and cannot leave their rooms.
3. Books, CDs, movies, magazines, and video games. These items are easily shared between children without getting broken or losing pieces (one of the main hazards of toys in public spaces). They are also calm (don't cause undue exertion) and don't carry too many germs as the covers can be easily sanitized.
4. Boom boxes, stereos, computers, TVs, gaming systems, and DVD players. Generally the same reasons as above.
5. Batteries. For portable stereos, etc.
6. Snacks like fresh fruit, rice krispy treats, capri sun juice bags, and sugarless chewing gum. Many children in hospital are on specialized diets, but these things are ok with most diets. Kids like them too. Hospital food is not that good.
7. Toiletries like toothpaste and shampoo. Nurses are the medication nazis, but they are not the personal hygiene nazis (they also don't really care if you stay up until 3 in the morning watching Spider-Man). Having fun toiletries can help kids stay up to date with their hygiene routines even in unfamiliar places. Scented hand sanitizer is great too; it encourages kids to kill germs. Hospital hanitizer is basically pure rubbing alcohol that smells and stings.
8. Craft supplies like paper, glue, tape, crayons, markers, stickers, beads, etc. They are entertaining, encourage brainwork and creativity, and are disposable to reduce clutter and germ sharing.
9. People to hang out with. In particular, 8 to 14 year old girls like to hang out with other tween and teen girls. It is great if these people have age appropriate conversation starters that do not have to do with why the child is in hospital. "Nice hat," is not necessarily a great way to get on with a child with cancer. "Have you seen the Michael Bolton/Jack Sparrow music video?" usually is a better bet for a young teen. People who sing/play music or can provide other entertainment like craft tutorials are a bonus.
DO NOT NEED:
1. Stuffed animals. Kids already have stuffed animals. They have favorites. These favorites are usually already at the hospital with the kids. They do not need more animals. Soft toys carry germs and allergens that are difficult to get rid of. Some children with breathing problems are not allowed to have stuffed animals because of this. When someone comes to hospital passing out animals, these children are left out.
2. Toys with multiple small parts like complex board games and jigsaw puzzles. The children who are mature enough to play with these usually just end up disappointed that there are pieces missing.
3. Things divided into gendered categories. This one is a little harder to explain. Sometimes people come to hospital with stuff to give out (for example, stuffed animals), and they have two bags: one for girls and one for boys. The girls bag has pink stuff, and the boys bag has blue stuff. Or someone will come by with Barbie paraphernalia and Hot Wheels. Kids in hospital are already put down and categorized so much; they do not need to have gender stereotypes shoved at them too. It's better to bring some feminine options, some masculine options, and some gender neutral options (or only gender neutral options) and let it be a free for all.
4. Candy, homemade foods (especially baked goods), and things that need refrigeration. These items usually do not comply with hospital diets, and their ingredients and freshness can be difficult to ascertain. There are not usually refrigerators that patients can easily use.
5. Sympathy. There's a fine line between care and going too far. Don't go too far. It is not appreciated.
14 February, 2014
Why the parody is much better than the original...
Behold, "Like a G6" by Far East Movement
And "Roll a D6" by Connor Anderson
Pop Quiz!
1. Which is a Billboard top 100 pop song, and which is a parody made by a bunch of kids?
2. Which references drug (and possibly driving under the influence) use in a manner that makes it seem fun and harmless?
3. Which is more appropriate for public viewing?
Answer Key:
1. "Like a G6"is a pop song by Far East Movement. It reached number one on the Billboard top 100 in 2010. Before the song became a sensation, written by someone who thought writing a song about using drugs and alcohol was a good idea. Then a producer thought that releasing a song about using drugs and alcohol was a good idea. Then millions of people enjoyed listening to a song about using drugs and alcohol.
"Roll a D6" is a parody, which was made by Connor Anderson (fairly anonymous young male youtube user) and some friends. They took the song "Like a G6" and changed the lyrics to reflect their pastime of playing Dungeons and Dragons.
2. "Like a G6" is absolutely full of references to drug and alcohol use. Drinking alcohol (specifically champagne) to get drunk is the main message of the song. The line "Sipping sizzurp in my ride" is repeated 4 times. Sizzurp is a mixture of codine from cough syrup, soda, and candy that is imbibed to get high. The song implies that this stuff is being drunk in a vehicle. The syntax of the sentence leads me to believe that the driver of the vehicle is drinking sizzurp. The context provided by the rest of the song leads me to believe that this individual has already had quite a lot of alcohol. This looks like a horrendous traffic accident waiting to happen. Not to mention the possibility of seizures, liver damage, poisoning, and death.
"Roll a D6" contains references to eating candy, drinking coke, playing an intellectually stimulating game, and maintaining friendships (as opposed to "Like a G6," where hanging around with random "drunk bitches" seems like a good idea). The characters in this video get "wild" with a fun night in (safely in the basement). They hype themselves up on sugar, caffeine, and excitement as they work together to create a story in their role playing game. Their teeth may be bearing the brunt of a sugary night, but this who ordeal is certainly much safer and more sensible than going out to drink and drive.
3. People, especially young people, are susceptible to copying things they see in media. Would you rather have your child mixing up dangerous drugs, drinking alcohol, and driving, or would you rather have your child enjoying sweets and playing creative games with friends? Really, isn't it obvious?
The Biggest Loser Finale Controversy--OMG!
Everyone's seen this story, I'm sure. I'll rehash it briefly anyway. The Biggest Loser is a reality TV show on NBC that follows obese people as they live at a secluded facility and lose weight through diet and exercise. The contestants are eliminated or voted out of the competition until only three are left. The final three then have a number of months to finish their weight loss at home before being weighed in at a live reveal. The contestant with the largest percentage of weight loss is named the Biggest Loser and awarded $250,000. This past season, the winning contestant lost 59.62% (NOT "over 60%" as some people are exaggerating) of her original body weight and weighed in at only 105 pounds. This lead many people to believe that she is now too thin, unhealthy, encouraging people to take dangerous health risks, and that NBC is corrupt.
Let's begin with some facts. Rachel Frederickson is 5'4" tall. Her original starting weight was 260 lbs. This gave her a starting BMI of 44.62402. This BMI places her in the "Obese Class III" category. In layman's terms, this basically means very-severely-obese or super-obese. Rachel's finishing weight was 105 lbs. This gives her a finishing BMI of 18.02124 (You ridiculous person on the radio who reported that her BMI was between 16 and 17, you are a total idiot who did no research). This BMI places her in the Underweight category. "Healthy" BMI is considered to be between 18.5 and 24.9. This means that Rachel's BMI is less than 0.5 away from a "Healthy" BMI. Rachel is the first person in Biggest Loser history to finish with a BMI that places her in the "Underweight" category.
Here are some generalities that should also be considered. BMI is a fairly arbitrary measure that does not consider bone density, general "build" (ectomorph, endomorph, mesomorph, etc.), hydration level, hormones/menstruation, etc. BMI of 18.4 to 16.0 is considered "Underweight." This term does not necessarily mean unhealthy. The BMI table references BMIs lower than 16.0 and extends to two categories beyond "Underweight" to express increased health risk. Many people (athletes) will purposefully dehydrate before a weigh in to seem to be a few pounds lighter. If just a few pounds could make the difference between winning $250,000 and going home with nothing, wouldn't you do it? Most people who compete on the Biggest Loser do not maintain their complete weight loss. Many gain 10 to 20 pounds back fairly quickly after the finale. Most manage to maintain this weight for years after the competition. We do not know Rachel's natural "comfortable" weight. She may very well have been quite thin before she began emotionally eating and got fat. We do know that she was an athlete, so she was probably slim.
And here are some comparison statistics to think about.
-The Biggest Loser contestant with the next-lowest finishing BMI was Helen Phillips, who is 5'6", and weighed in at 117 pounds, giving her a BMI of 18.9.
-Biggest Loser trainer Jillian Michaels is 5'2.5" tall and weighs 115 pounds, giving her a BMI of 20.696.
-While filming Black Swan, actress Natalie Portman (5'3") got down to 97 pounds, giving her a BMI of 17.181.
-Kristen Chenoweth is 4'11" and weighs 88 pounds, giving her a BMI of 17.772.
-Author Stephanie Meyer describes Bella Swan of the Twilight Saga as 5'4" and 110 pounds, giving her a BMI of 18.8794. Kristen Stewart is 5'6" and 120 pounds, so her BMI is 19.3664.
-I (Jillian) am 5'3" and weigh 95 pounds, giving me a BMI of 16.83.
-My good friend is 5'4" and weighs 107 pounds, so her BMI is 18.36.
-The average BMI for a woman in Vietnam is 18.73.
-The average BMI for a woman in the US is 27.00. This falls in the "Overweight "category.
-Most contestants who appear on the Biggest Loser (and do not make the final 3) have a BMI in the mid-to-high 20's at the finale. They have usually dropped from the "Obese Class III" category to the "Overweight" category.
-The categories I've been referencing are from the US version of the BMI chart. While the calculation to find the numerical BMI is the same in every country, the categorical designations are different based on the health tendencies of the population. In Japan, there is no "Underweight" category. Anything under 18.5 is considered "Low."
If Rachel weighed 108 pounds (only three pounds more than her weight at the finale), she would have a BMI of just over 18.5, placing her in the "Healthy" category.
Rachel and her trainer Dolvett recently did a magazine interview. They both acknowledged that Rachel probably lost a little too much weight, and she will now be working on maintaining her fitness goals with a healthy BMI. Rachel has stated that she has undergone medical testing to confirm that she is healthy. She also denies having an eating disorder. Rachel states her reason for losing so much weight for the finale was to shock and impress family and friends.
So I've got a beef with the world, the US in particular. When other contestants step onto the stage for the Biggest Loser finale, they are often still overweight. They look a good bit better than they did in the beginning, but they are still "fat" and their BMI's place them above the limit of the "Healthy" category. It is considered to be in bad taste to say that one of these contestants is fat. You're supposed to say, "Oh he/she looks so much better. He/she has done so well on his/her weight loss journey. I'm sure he/she will maintain and continue to lose in the quest to get healthy..."
But when Rachel walked the stage looking pretty much proportional to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model (and may I point out that no one seems to have a problem with them being slim and beautiful), nobody has a qualm about ripping the woman apart. She is being called anorexic, ugly, a cheater, sick, deceptive, and a proponent of self harm. And I think she is being called these things because of three pounds. THREE bloody pounds. If she had weighed in at 108 pounds and had a BMI of 18.5, I think the public would be lauding her and saying she looked fantastic and is a role model for all. And you know what? Rachel might actually weigh 108 pounds. She may have dehydrated to lose a few pounds of water weight right before the big night.
Or her natural comfortable weight may actually be around (not necessarily exactly) 105 pounds. I have already shared my BMI, and I am well aware that it is considered "Underweight" (though I will point out that it is in the "Underweight" category, not in the two more severe categories below "Underweight"). I am a dancer, and I work out 10 to 12 hours per week. I eat a healthy diet with lots of high energy foods like nuts and avocado. I also like junk food, and I indulge every once in a while. I am fairly severely hypoglycemic, so I tend to metabolize food very quickly. My weight stays pretty stable between 95 and 98 pounds. I briefly weighed in the 105-110 range during high school when I was not exercising. Once I began exercising again, my weight dropped back to the 95-98 range. This is my natural comfortable weight. All of the females in my family are petite. I have a pretty regular menstrual cycle. My doctor has confirmed my general health. I enjoy being slim, and I think my figure makes me attractive. I accept my weight for what it is.
Some people have made it their duty to inform me of my implied non-health. They come to this conclusion purely based on my weight and BMI. I have observed that people who do this generally do not approach slightly overweight people and inform them of their implied non-health. What has happened to social standards of equality? It seems like respect for the naturally thin was shoved out when "fat acceptance" became a thing in the media. "Fatness" seems to have become a physical trait equitable to a large nose: you can change it to become mainstream and forgotten, or you can accept yourself the way you are and receive praise for doing so. The only problem is that there is rarely a health risk associated with a large nose, and there is more often a health risk associated with being overweight, and especially obese. If Rebel Wilson and Melissa McCarthy lost a lot of weight, they would probably be much healthier (lower blood pressure, lowered risk of heart disease, heart attack, and stroke, lower cholesterol, etc.). However, I think both of these actresses would be criticized as "bending to Hollywood standards" or some other nonsense if they made the positive health change of losing weight.
I don't mean to go all conspiracy theorist on you, but it seems to me like the social standards (and medical standards, to a lesser extent) are creeping up to accept a nation and world that is overweight. I think we are preparing for the future we are warned about; one with 75+% of the population in the "Overweight" or "Obese" category. When we laud Rebel Wilson and publicly embarrass Rachel Frederickson, we are enforcing the new and frankly scary standard that fat is ok, and that it is better than thin. BMI standards have not been changed for many decades, but they are occasionally modified to reflect changes in data. For example, Asian individuals are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes at a lower BMI than Caucasian individuals, so the BMI chart in some Asian countries have been changed to make the "Overweight" category start below 25. What happens in the United States when so much of the population is overweight that the chart needs a little modification to reflect what's going on. What if all of the sudden the "Underweight" category starts at 19.0 instead of 18.5? What if "Overweight" started at 30.0 instead of 25.0? Then how many more previously healthy people will be considered underweight and therefore unhealthy?
To restate one of my original points, BMI is just a number. It is a calculation that takes into account weight and height. So many other factors go into making a person healthy or unhealthy. I don't think it's a reliable measurement when it is considered alone.
And finally, what I've been meaning to say all along: Leave poor Rachel alone. She's fine. If she is happy. She is much healthier than she was at 260 pounds. Trust me, I know all about this. She's fine.
13 February, 2014
Video Game Stereotypes and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a hilarious teen comedy film about a 22 year old young man's quest to date the girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers. In order to do so, he must defeat her "seven evil exes" in epic video game style battles. The film is clearly meant to be something of a parody. Text of internal dialogue and sound effects frequently appears on screen. The universal studios intro music has been edited to sound like the beeping music of old nintendo games. Scott (and the other characters) use ninja-like martial arts and weapons like flaming swords in the fight scenes. When an enemy is defeated, Scott receives coins as a reward. He also "levels up" and swaps between "single player" and "two player" modes. These all sound ok, right?
Let's go on. The female characters fight less than the male characters. When the females fight, they are either defeated by or backing up the male characters. The object of the "game" in the film is to win the privilege of dating a girl. There are fewer female characters total than male characters. Most of the characters are white. All of the non-white characters have ethnic first or last names. Matthew Patel, who is Indian, dances to an Indian pop song and has a harem of "demon hipster chicks" to back him up. The Katanayagi twins are Japanese. They are both robotics experts and can summon dragons. Their first names are Ken and Kyle, but one of them is called Kevin in the "game." There are a few gay characters. They are frequently defined by their sexualities. Disturbed yet?
Is the best way to make a farce of gaming culture to pick up all of the stereotypes and blow them up? Yeah, lots of Asian guys are named Kevin. But is it ok to purposefully mess up someone's name to make fun of a stereotype? Why is Matthew Patel attributed with a harem, a personal nest of prostitutes from the wealthier sections of Indian antiquity? Well, it's because he's Indian. Scott Pilgrim makes fun of these stereotypes and we find it amusing. The filmmakers can make fun of these things because they are in embedded in our gaming (and general media) culture. The real question is why are they embedded in our culture?
Gaming culture seems to be one of the "final frontiers" where white male supremacy still reigns. How does this happen? Most game designers are heterosexual white or asian males who find the stereotypical white male look appealing as a "fantasy self" to use as a player-character. Game industries want to make money from their mostly heterosexual white and asian male consumers, so they include these white male characters as the player-characters and add attractive females as supporting characters for a treat. Lovely. (NOTE: I am not saying all games are like this. I am a big fan of Dragon Quest and LEGO Batman precisely because they do NOT use these stereotypes.)
How do we combat this? Who knows. More diverse game designers would help. As would consumers who express a desire for more diverse games. This conversation has a long way to go before it starts to make a difference. But at least the conversation is started, thanks in part to Scott Pilgrim.
Did You Miss Me?
That line is from Sherlock, in case you didn't recognize it...
Super-lesbian nerd face
I'm back! I haven't written for a long time; blame school, dance, depression, everything. This semester, I am taking mostly upper level communications classes that require me to do a lot of opinion writing. I am hoping to turn this blog into sort of a satirical exposition for my opinions (at least for now). I am into pop culture criticism at the moment, so you'll be seeing a lot of that. Fear not-- your favorite (well, my favorite) fiction works are still available in the archives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)