Is this shampoo commercial sexist or not?

(here's the link to youtube)

Tell me what you think, because I read a blog post which claims that this commercial is full of sexism, and it made the author of the post really angry.

But I don't see it. I've watched the commercial, and it seems to be saying, "Hey, I'm an Olympic athlete and I'm awesome. But the pool water really damages my hair. So I use Pantene shampoo and it's awesome."

And the claim, in the aforementioned blog post, is that this commercial is saying, "Even if you're an Olympic athlete, as a woman you're still not good enough unless your hair is perfect and you fit this standard of beauty."

I think the context is really really important when determining if something is sexist/racist/etc. If the commercial was perpetuating a harmful sexist stereotype that already exists in the minds of its audience, then that would be bad and sexist.

But I don't think it is. Really, I don't. I don't see any problem.

During the Olympics, there has been a lot of talk in the land of feminist blogs (blogosphere? I have some doubts about whether it is, in fact, a sphere) about how the media is portraying the female athletes. And I agree that that criticism is valid- it IS dumb and sexist for the media to make a big deal about an athlete's weight or physical appearance, and to do this to woman athletes and not men. Like... they're athletes, they're the best in the world, and you really think it's valid to criticize their bodies? Really? Really?

But I stand by my statement that I don't see any harmful messages towards women in that commercial. I'm sure if I thought about it enough, I could come up with some convoluted message of sexism, but nothing was obvious when I first watched the commercial, so I think it's not worth analyzing in any more detail than that.

What do y'all think?

"TV Made Me Gay"

I totally disagree with the argument put forth by the author in this post: TV Made Me Gay (posted July 24). He writes in response to the group "One Million Moms" and their stand against the TV show "The New Normal," which apparently has gay characters. He mocks the idea that TV can have an effect on people- as if you'll suddenly have a weird sensation while watching an episode of "Glee" and immediately become gay.

Wait, really? His argument is "TV doesn't affect how people see the world"? Really?

The controversy over having gay characters on TV is a separate issue and I'm not going to get into that- I just want to challenge this line of reasoning.

Can you imagine someone saying "TV made me feel like my body's not good enough because I'm not skinny" and then someone else replies with this ridiculous narrative about how "oh I was watching 'The Little Mermaid' and then suddenly a weird sensation came over me and I suddenly believed I was fat and worthless"?

"Oh goodness! As a result of this 10-second clip, my views on what a female body should look like are completely changed!" Image source.

No. Everyone knows it doesn't work like that. But the criticism that media is negatively affecting women's self-image is valid, and this effect is generally agreed to be true, right?

I'm not saying this is the same thing as causing someone to become gay. I'm saying that the argument "TV doesn't affect people" is so wrong that I needed to say something and challenge it.

There are so many subtle messages in media that can have very negative effects. What about how minorities are rarely shown, or only in some stereotyped role? I remember one of my Asian-American friends telling me she never saw Asians in a certain role, and so she assumed she wouldn't be able to do that either. I thought it was silly when I heard her say that- but it's real. It may be subconscious; it may be things that, when you actually think about them, you realize they're totally ridiculous- but it still does affect how people see the world.

And I think this is a big deal. I wrote some about what movies say about romance in this post on "The Princess Bride". I wrote about how happy I was to not see the usual sexist tropes in this post on "Megamind". I wrote about my disagreement with the idea that the song "What Makes You Beautiful" is sexist. I wrote about the movie "Think Like A Man", one of the few movies starring black characters. I want to write more on this topic, because media is a HUGE influence on culture (and sometimes a very bad influence).

And what about the advocates of gay rights, who are happy to see TV shows with gay characters? Why do you think they're happy about it? Because it will affect the public's perception of being gay. You could make arguments about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but the fact is, it does affect how people think.

And currently, with most TV shows and movies not having any gay characters, it sends the message that gay people don't exist or matter. So this whole issue about "subtle messages in media" is very tricky and nuanced.

You can make arguments about whether it's good or bad to have gay people on TV shows. But one argument I will not accept is "it won't affect what people think about being gay."

Blogaround

Image source.

Some things from around teh intarwebz:

1. 17-Year-Old Rape Victim Loses Her First Amendment Rights by Being Raped (posted July 22). This is all kinds of messed-up.

2. This video, which someone sent me after what I said about that whole myth of finding your one perfect soul-mate. This song is hilarious- it's called "If I Didn't Have You."

"If I didn't have you, I think that I would probably have somebody else."

"It's abstruse to deduce I found my soul mate at the age of 17, it's just mathematically unlikely that ... I happened to stumble on the one girl on earth specifically designed for me."

I love this video and can't even tell you how much I agree with it.

3. What I Wish I'd Known Before Watching Porn (posted July 23). Interesting article, specifically relating to women who watch porn.

4. Authorities: 14 Dead After Truck Crashes In Texas (posted July 23). Reading this article kind of showed me that I'm a terrible person... the people who died were illegal immigrants, and somehow my first reaction was to think that makes it less bad. And then I wondered if the article should have been written differently, if it should have emphasized that they're real people, rather than just using the label "illegal immigrant" as if they're just a controversial political topic.

5. For first time, women from every nation ready to rock Olympics (posted July 24). Awesome.

6. No, I'm not in "the gay lifestyle." Neither is anyone else. (posted July 24) I totally recommend this- written by a gay Christian.

Image source.

7. Boston mayor vows to keep Chick-Fil-A out of city (posted July 24). THIS IS NOT OKAY. THIS IS NOT OKAY. The GOVERNMENT is trying to discriminate against Chick-Fil-A because of statements that the owner made. Now, you can agree or disagree with Chick-Fil-A's opposition to gay marriage, and you can choose to eat there or not. That's fine. But for the GOVERNMENT to take action against a business because of its owner exercising his right to free speech and freedom of religion... I don't even.

I hope people on both sides of the gay-marriage debate will recognize how not-okay this is and speak out against it.

8. The Attraction to Legalism (posted July 23). I agree with this guy. And I think in some ways it's easier for Christians to try to keep a list of rules than to actually follow Jesus with everything we have.

9. Miss Zee's Coloring Book and the invisibility of little black girls (posted July 23). It's almost impossible to find a coloring book for kids featuring black characters. (I totally had never thought about that!) This post introduces a woman who is designing a coloring book about a black girl.

10. Mario Proposal: Woman Invites Boyfriend To Engage In Game Of Love (posted July 26). THIS IS ADORABLE!

Any other interesting links? Anything going on on your own blog?

Moses said "Let my people go" and blamed it on God

Hey remember the time Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said "Let my people go"? (link to part of the story, on biblegateway)  What reason did they give him for why he should free all the slaves?

Image source.

Perhaps they made some kind of convincing argument about why slavery is wrong.  Perhaps they gave Pharaoh a history lesson about how the first Israelite to come to Egypt was Joseph, who proceeded to save Egypt from a famine.

Nope.  The first time they came to see Pharaoh, they said “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the desert’” (Exodus 5:1) and they explain further, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Now let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the Lord our God, or he may strike us with plagues or with the sword.” (Exodus 5:3)

And again and again and again, that is the only reason given:  "Let my people go, so that they may worship me." (Exodus 7:16, 8:1, 8:20, 9:1, 9:13, 10:3)

And when Pharaoh finally says the people can go but the livestock can't, Moses and Aaron are like "we have to take the livestock- we're supposed to go make sacrifices and we don't know which animals we need yet, so we have to take all of them." (Exodus 10:26- haha, not an exact quote)  Blaming it on God. 

Better to be safe than smitten. Image source.

They don't give some kind of argument trying to convince Pharaoh why it's a good idea for him to free the people.  They just say God told us to go have a festival in the desert, and we might get in trouble if we don't.

This reminds me of learning how to say no to drugs in elementary school- one idea is "blame it on your parents"- when people want you to do drugs, you say "my parents won't let me, I'll get in so much trouble" so your "friends" can't get mad at you.  Make your parents the bad guy.

They make it sound like God's really harsh with them and for some reason this festival is really important to him and he's being really unreasonable about it.

Sheesh.  As if we don't already have enough to do.  You do realize we're in slavery, right God?

But that's not the real reason God wants Pharaoh to free the slaves.  God tells Moses the real reason: "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.  So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land..." (Exodus 3:7-8)

Yeah, the real reason is because God cares about them and sees them suffering.  Also, this: God's words to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:13-16, "Let my people go, so that they may worship me, or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.  For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth.  But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

So, 2 reasons: Because God cares about the Israelites, and because God wants to show off his power.

When Moses and Aaron go talk to Pharaoh, they're not trying to explain to him why slavery is morally wrong, etc.  They're not trying to show him logically why he should free the slaves.  They're not trying to have a discussion. If that were the case, then it's Pharaoh arguing against Moses and Moses's ideas about morality and politics.  I really don't think Pharaoh's going to be won over by arguments.  As if he doesn't already know the slaves are suffering.  

The point is that God said to free the slaves, and you know what, it doesn't matter why- God said that and he means it.  No reason to explain any more than that.  If Pharoah has a problem with it, he has a problem with Israel's God, not Moses's debate points.

Because this wasn't about logic and morality.  It was about Israel's God vs Egypt's gods.  I love the part where Aaron's staff becomes a snake, and Pharoah's like "I see your staff-snake, and raise you my magicians' staff-snakes."  (Exodus 7:11, perfectnumber628's paraphrase)  Whereas a normal person would be like "HOLY CRAP!" 

Please. When I create snakes out of inanimate objects, they are WAY scarier than yours. Image source.

So, discussion questions: Does it make sense that Moses/Aaron/God did it this way?  Are there situations in which we should follow their example?  Was it unfair to Pharaoh to not have a "real" reason?  Is it okay for God to "show off his power" at the expense of Egypt?  Other cool insights about this story?

Click here for more posts on the book of Exodus. 

Modesty: My Solution

Here is my previous post, in which I basically concluded that it would be most godly for me to not look like a girl.

And here is my answer, my personal stance on this whole "modesty" issue:

1. If modesty is for helping the boys, then it's ONLY for the decent boys.

If modesty is about helping boys not to lust, well, some boys are beyond help.  There are men who WANT to objectify women. Women have NO RESPONSIBILITY to "help" them not be perverts. There are men who stare at women on the bus. There are men who get on the internet and argue that women should take sexual harassment as a COMPLIMENT. There are men who make awful sexist superbowl commercials... Modesty is absolutely not for their benefit.

Because they don't want help. Because they're beyond help. Because the only way to stop them from objectifying you is to not let them know you're a girl.

Usually it gets worded a bit more crudely... Image source.

Because if you're a pervert, and you want to be a pervert, that's your own problem. It makes no sense for me to change my behavior for someone who doesn't even respect women. It's ridiculous that I would even CONSIDER that maybe I should change my behavior for them. Absolutely not.

The best I can do is try not to think about it, because that's the creepiest thing...

No, the boys we are trying to "help" by being "modest" are the decent ones. They're the ones who respect women and treat them like, you know, people. Treat them like friends, like sisters. They are the ones who want to have a friendly conversation with you, and know that it would be wrong to stare at your boobs, and they don't want to stare, so help them out by not showing cleavage.

The decent guys are the ones who have thought about this stuff before, who know what lust is, and know their own weaknesses and limits. They live in the same world you do- they have to live in society every day and interact with women. As long as your appearance is within the realm of what people typically look like, the guys have seen it before and if this is really a problem for them, then they have faced it before and know what they need to do to deal with it.

So, not as much of a big deal as we girls might think.

(Decent guys out there- am I right?)

2. Cost vs benefit

One of the ideas behind "modesty" is that yes, girls totally have the freedom to wear whatever, but we should give up some of that freedom, to help out the guys. So, you could see it like this:

Cost to me, as a woman: I don't get to look as sexy as I want.

Benefit to men: They don't have to worry about guarding their minds against lust when they're around me.

Maybe that sounds reasonable in principle, but how does that work in a practical sense? Do women have to agonize over all their clothing choices, feel bad about their bodies if they look more "feminine", question their motives all the time, and feel guilty for wanting to be beautiful?

"Oh no this t-shirt has an image on the front! I'm worried that it draws too much attention to my chest..." Image source.

How it actually works out:

Cost to me, as a woman: I feel like I'm not allowed to look cute/beautiful/feminine at all. The logical conclusion is that I should wear a tent, you know, in order to help the guys as much as possible.

Benefit to men: Impossible to measure. Maybe it all didn't matter.

But the bible says to treat others better than ourselves. So shouldn't I give up my rights, without limit, in order to possibly help someone else a little bit?

No. The cost to me/ benefit to you ratio DOES matter. This would be like if I walked 5 miles to Tim Hortons and back to buy you a coffee in case you didn't like the one you already had. Every day.

My first rage comic! Be nice.

This is clearly unreasonable. But this is exactly what it's like for a woman to worry about her clothes and feel bad and fear that she might "cause her brother to stumble", and by extension feel like something is wrong with the feminine way her body was made, and that she's not allowed to be beautiful. Huge cost, no apparent benefit.

(Decent guys out there- speak up if I've got this all wrong.)

3. What you wear should be about YOU

For all body types, there are some clothes that look really good for that body type. Women should go ahead and figure out what makes them look good and feel good, and wear that.  

As far as "modesty" is concerned, well, I guess don't show a ton of cleavage, and don't wear some super-tight catwoman suit, but other than that, don't worry about it. Seriously, don't worry about it. I personally don't care about modesty at all any more. As long as what you look like is within the realm of what people typically look like, it's fine.

The most important thing about what you wear should be that YOU like it. I want women to feel awesome about how they look. Wear clothes that make you happy. What you wear should be about you, it shouldn't be to please someone else, and it definitely shouldn't be to "help" boys with some vaguely-understood phantom problem that they might have.

(And I no longer have the patience to be super-extreme-conservative about a "problem" that I can never directly observe or understand.)

Also, one component of "what makes you feel good" is how other people perceive you. Yeah, it's true that people will give you a different amount of respect depending on what you wear. Ideally it wouldn't be that way, but whatever. Figure out how that makes you feel, and dress accordingly.  

Also don't try to "dress to get attention from guys" ON PURPOSE. But that's not the same thing as feeling awesome about yourself. Yes, I think feeling good because you look cute is somewhat related to being attractive to guys. But don't kill yourself trying to tease out and analyze your motives. (In other words, I don't require that the dot product of "I want to wear this because it's cute" and "I want boys to think I'm attractive" is 0.) You're fine. Looking awesome is awesome. Go ahead and be awesome.

Seriously. Yeah basically this is my stance on modesty: Don't worry about the boys. Just wear whatever makes you look and feel awesome. If you're not TRYING to manipulate boys by wearing revealing stuff, then I'm sure you're fine. Please, just don't worry about it. It's not fair for women to have that burden.

4. We absolutely DO NOT judge other women's clothing choices.

I can think of very very few situations in which it would be okay for one women to tell another that her clothes were too "immodest." Certainly it would only be okay between very very good friends- and even then, very rarely.

I'm not okay with the stories I hear about Christian camp counselors punishing/shaming girls for wearing a two-piece swimsuit. (For tall skinny people like me, one-piece swimsuits just DO NOT EXIST. I bet there are other body-types with that issue too.)

"Thank goodness- they've relaxed the requirements this year! I can bring a one-piece swimsuit, or a two-piece made of unicorn fur!" Image source.

And I'm not okay with girls making comments: "she needs to put some clothes on" referring to some stranger they see out in public. Even if it's a girl walking around in a bikini in the mall. Yes I know that does not fit my requirement above about being "in the realm of what people typically wear" but that doesn't matter. That's a guideline I've set for myself, not something I'd like to force everyone to follow. You don't know her- don't judge her.

I'm DEFINITELY not okay with making little comments about what someone wears to church. It's the freaking church! We need to accept people, not judge them. (You may have heard of someone named Jesus who advocated this...?) If someone comes to your church, and you say "wow I can't believe she's wearing a shirt like that" instead of saying "Hi, welcome to church", then you’re doing it wrong.

------------------------------------

So, that's my solution to modesty. This is meant to be advice for what to do as an individual woman- I haven't addressed how this shows some of the problems of society in general, I haven't offered a solution about what to teach young Christian girls (and boys) about modesty/lust/beauty. And I think different women may have different "solutions" than I do. That's fine. We can disagree about everything except point #4, about not judging people- I stand by that point.

Tell me what you think in the comments!

Modesty as she is taught

I especially want Christian men to read this, because every time I've tried to discuss "modesty" and all my confusion about it, the guys' response is along the lines of "what are you talking about?" I think Christian men don't know what Christian women are being taught about modesty, and if they did, they would think it was totally ridiculous. So here we go.

1. Men are visual.

What this apparently means is men tend to picture women naked. (Apparently gay men don't exist in this paradigm?) They can't help it. "That's how they're wired." (The first time I heard that, I thought it was a cool metaphor, because I'm an electrical engineer. By the thousandth time, I'd realized it's a way to say "this is just the way it is" without giving a real reason.) They see your bra strap sticking out and immediately a fantasy image of you being naked flashes (heh) in front of their eyes.

Is this true? To what extent does it go? Okay, I am not a straight guy. (If I see a bra, I don't think anything of it. That's a totally normal thing in my life- not sexual at all. But apparently my interpretation is wrong- I should be thinking of it the way a pervert does, duh.) I have ABSOLUTELY no way to directly observe whether this is true or not. Only straight guys can understand exactly how this bizarre phenomenon works. Also, I'm sure there is variation among the straight guys.

Oh, and also. If you are picturing me naked, I think that's creepy. I'm not okay with that.

But of course I can't attempt to understand this by actually having a conversation with a guy about it (well, I'd really need to talk to a bunch of guys to get a feel for how it works on average...) because that's super-awkward. No way I'm gonna have some guy tell me how this works in enough detail that I actually understand.

(The best I can do is read the comments on reddit... nope.)

So, we're starting out with a "problem" that I can never actually understand, and I'm responsible for helping the guys deal with this problem. Oh and I can't actually talk to them about it. Got it.

In other words, because guys think about sex all the time, I am assigned the chore of preemptively thinking about sex (haha just kidding, women don't want sex!) guessing what they are thinking about sex, in order to help them.

WAIT WAIT LET ME EDIT THAT. I am assigned the chore of preemptively guessing the creepy, perverted ways that boys might be objectifying and disrespecting me and my body. So I can attempt to prevent that.

And I would like to reiterate: I AM NOT A STRAIGHT GUY. Actually, all of the women who are taught this are, you know, by definition, not straight guys.

What could go wrong?

2. Women's bodies have power over men.

Yes, that's right. Men can't think straight (haha, straight) when they're picturing you naked. And lust is evil- we must do what we can to help keep our brothers from committing this terrible sin. Girls, you have the responsibility to save them from themselves!

Oh, and when they teach modesty, they always throw in the caveat that no, you are not responsible for a guy's thoughts. If he sins, that's his own fault. But you make it more difficult for him if you are "immodest." Shouldn't we help our brothers out as much as we can?

So much power. Boys apparently follow a girl around and give her attention if she's dressed "immodestly." I have actually never observed this phenomenon- is it real? Maybe that's because I'm generally oblivious to the people around me. Or maybe I don't have the right body-type for it to have all that "power"?

But anyway, the Christian women's groups told me my body had the potential to exert evil power over boys, and oh man, that sounds awesome. Yeah perfectnumber, you could be out there with this whole harem of guys, leading them on, they'd follow you around and want you (in a totally non-creepy way- this is my fantasy, I make the rules). I want boys to want me, I want them to serve me... that's my own personal temptation. That's not a good thing.

So you say I have this power, which I have never seen evidence of before, and which I would love to use for evil and manipulation if it did exist... Yep, this whole modesty thing seems pretty legit so far. -_-

3. And therefore, women must be careful about what they wear.

And maybe how they walk, and talk, etc. You can never be too careful. (Barf.)

Women, you know you have the freedom in Christ to wear what you want, and it's a guy's own fault if he lusts. But hey, Romans 14, don't use your freedom to cause your brother to stumble. Is it really worth it to wear that cute/sexy/whatever shirt, if it causes a brother to stumble?

So... in a practical sense, what do you want me to do?

Should I wear this

Image source.

or this

Image source.

I mean, the dress is cuter and I'd prefer that (heh, who am I kidding, I actually don't have a cute dress like that, but this is a thought experiment)... but... well, is it too low-cut in the front? And I can't guarantee that my bra straps will NEVER show. (Because PHYSICS. Not because I'm trying to "tempt" anyone.) Also, do you think it's too short? Are guys interested in my legs? Maybe? Who knows? Did I mention I'm not a straight guy? This might possibly "cause" someone to lust, I guess?

Perfectnumber, which do you care about more- doing the right thing or looking cute?

But...

Perfectnumber, didn't you commit your life 100% to Jesus? No matter what the cost, you obey him?

...Yes.

And he wants you to put others above yourself...

Okay, the dress is out.

How about that white t-shirt? Oh, actually, I don't know if that's okay either. Look how it doesn't come down far enough- you can see a tiny sliver of skin right at her waist. And you follow Jesus regardless of the cost, right? Right. Okay, you need to wear something under it. Cover up that skin.

And every time I have a tiny bit of uncertainty, I remember that I am ABSOLUTELY loyal to Jesus. If it comes at the cost of being cute, then that's my cross to bear.

But what if I'm doing all of this for nothing? What if it didn't actually matter to guys which one I wear? There's no way to get any feedback in this game.

And on the other hand, isn't it true that the more cute and beautiful and feminine I look, the more likely that a boy is going to lust? Why not going all the way to the extreme and wear an XXXL t-shirt, so my body won't look like a girl at all?

Why not go all the way to the extreme?

Why not go all the way to the extreme?

Why not go all the way to the extreme? There's a positive correlation between beauty and lust, right? Why not go all the way to the extreme?

Because me wanting to look awesome and beautiful pushes in one direction, and my concern for some mysterious problem that boys supposedly have pushes me in the other. It's godly to give up my rights in order to help other people, but is there anything godly about looking beautiful? Is it all just my selfishness that makes me not want to look like a tent?

They say God made beauty. Well he obviously did it wrong- we need to cover it all up before its evil power enslaves all the men.

 It's my cross to bear.  Image source.

Stay tuned for my answer to all this confusion, coming up in Friday's blog post.

edit: Here it is. Modesty: My Solution

Some Feminism/Sexism Posts I Gathered

1. How Stereotypes Can Drive Women To Quit Science (posted July 12). It's a very long article, but here's the important part: when women talk to men about science/research stuff, the women are often a bit worried that the men aren't taking them seriously. And this makes the women less confident, less excited about their work.

It's not true all the time, but yes, I often do have those stereotypes in mind when I'm explaining something about my robotics research. Like, I gotta try really hard to say the right things and not sound too casual, because he probably already assumes I don't know what I'm talking about.

Xkcd said it better than anyone else. This is exactly what I'm afraid of. Image source.

2. Ranked: Disney Princesses From Least To Most Feminist (posted July 11). This is a really interesting article- I totally love Disney cartoons. This is definitely worth reading.

However, I feel kind of uncomfortable about saying "this character was more feminist than this character"- they all lived in different settings/times and had different personality types and had to work with what they had. Mulan is ranked as the "most feminist" because she pretended to be a man. Pocahontas is ranked as #2 because, among other things, "she's the only princess who doesn't end up with the man she's in love with."

So does that mean that if you like to cook and clean (like Snow White), you're not a feminist? Does that mean if you get stuck and need to be rescued (like Aurora), you're not a feminist? Does that mean if you make a choice to give up your dream in order to be with the man/frog you love (like Tiana), you're not a feminist? I'm actually really disturbed about the implication that the ideal feminist is one who rejects her own femininity, like Mulan.

"Now is probably not the best time to share my opinion on how women shouldn't be judged by what they wear." Image source.

I think you can't judge an individual character, but maybe you can judge a movie. You can look at the messages it's sending- and in order to understand that, you need to know the context of the culture it's in. If "Snow White" was the only movie in which we see beauty being a really big deal, then, well, whatever. But the fact is, that message is everywhere in American culture, and it gets reinforced in movies.

3. Why doesn't Sarah Robles, the strongest person in America, have all the athletic sponsorships? (posted July 3). Sarah Robles is a Olympic athlete, a weightlifter who can lift 568 lb. But unlike many incredibly talented athletes, she's not being paid a ton of money to endorse products. Why not? The easy answer is she doesn't fit the "standard of beauty" for women.

Image source.

But there has to be more to it than that. I don't think you can point to any particular person or company and say this is their fault. Companies are in it for the money- they will pick athletes who are well-known. There's no rule that says all the top athletes must be asked to be in ads.

This goes a lot deeper than "all the companies are evil and hate her because she's not skinny and 'feminine.'" If anything, it's not anyone's "fault"- it's a sad story about American culture in general.

4. And here is a really really cool article about "storing a password in your subconscious." Usually when you read news articles about science, the headline totally misrepresents it, and you read it and you get to the end and you're like "...so...?" (Well, at least that's been my experience.) This article actually IS awesome.

"You Never Marry the Right Person" article

I was so happy to find this post over on Relevant Magazine. The author says the modern idea of "finding the ideal soul-mate" is totally wrong. The Christian view on this is that no one is perfect- whoever you marry is going to be a flawed, sinful human being. A lot of people are surprised when they have problems in their marriages because they thought if they were compatible, it would be easy to love each other. The author challenges this- why should it be EASY? It's not easy for a baseball player to learn to hit fastballs, or for an author to write some quality literature- why would it be EASY to live with another imperfect person? But through all the struggles, marriage illustrates some of the love of God, so it's a good thing.

Wow! I totally agree with this guy! And I'm so surprised, because I thought it was just me who was thinking "umm... this whole there's-one-person-perfect-for-you thing just makes no sense..." Seriously, I've NEVER heard anyone else say anything like this, unless I brought it up first.

Image source.

And actually, this is very good news! If there's exactly 1 perfect person, or if "being compatible" is binary (you two either are or you're not) then that's so much more pressure. If you marry the "wrong" person, you're screwed. But if every couple is somewhere on a spectrum of compatibility, and you can learn to live together as long as you are pretty compatible and you both selflessly love each other- well, then, yay! Marriage is not as impossible as I thought.

But I disagree with him on one little bit. He frames it as "oh our culture is obsessed with finding the ideal partner- but here is the Christian perspective on it." I have heard the exact same thing from the Christian side, except it was GOD destining you for that one perfect partner. This isn't just an idea that Christians happen to believe because we live in a culture that believes it- no, Christian culture has AFFIRMED and EMBELLISHED it by adding God.

And I think the Christian version is an entirely different beast. Much stronger. Because come on, finding your one true love? Life isn't a fairy-tale. But then you throw God into it, and ya know, God can do anything, and God has a plan for your life. Now it's suddenly believable.

"Find God's match for you"? Wow... wow where do I even start... Image source.

And because God has a plan for my life, if I like some boy but notice a little thing I don't like about him, then the answer has to be no. If I dated him, that would be "not trusting God." That would be trying to satisfy my own desires- because hey, I like boys- and God is highly suspicious of anyone having fun.

I'm supposed to deny my fleshly desires and "wait" for what God has that's better. Because of course God's intention is to set me up with a PERFECT guy- that's what they taught me in church. Wouldn't want to "settle" for less than "God's best."

"God has hand-crafted ONE person JUST for you, and you won't experience real love till you find that one person. So when the guy in 3rd period breaks your heart, just think of how perfect it will be when you find The Right One <3." Umm... citation needed? Image source.

(The text in the above image is SO WRONG. So wrong. Gold medal in the Olympics of Being Wrong.)

So... God wants to set you up with a perfect person. Better reject anyone who has a flaw.

Doesn't it seem weird that dating is about judging the other person, ditching them at the first sign of incompatibility, and marriage is about working together, loving unconditionally, and sticking together no matter what? Or at least, that's the story they told me.

And doesn't it seem weird that this hypothetical guy that God is manufacturing JUST FOR ME is an actual person? And our relationship will happen in the real world? There's no way he's "perfect." (Have you ever noticed that REAL PEOPLE get married all the time?) So I've hit a contradiction here. Help me find the error in my logic.

This whole methodology is so screwed up, and I don't know what parts are right and wrong. I don't know where to start, or what dating is supposed to look like for Christians.

This bear is sad because she doesn't understand dating. Image source.

The Four Tones Are Totally Not That Bad

I remember a time I got annoyed at someone for referring to a certain holiday in November as THANKSgiving, rather than ThanksGIVing.

And if you understand the difference between saying THANKSgiving and ThanksGIVing, well congratulations, you are capable of understanding the different tones in Mandarin Chinese.

You may have heard that "Chinese is a tonal language." And you may have concluded that, obviously you had no idea what that meant and clearly learning Chinese is impossible. And I'm here to tell you it's NOT impossible. (source: I'm white and I speak Chinese.)

What is a tonal language?

"Tone" is the pitch of your voice while pronouncing a word. In a tonal language, the tone is actually really really important- if you pronounce it with a different tone, you're actually saying a different word.

Here is a diagram of the 4 tones in Mandarin Chinese. The top of the image would be a high pitch, the bottom is a low pitch. You know, like in music.

Image source.

(Oh, also- you see those numbers on the side from 1 to 5? Don't worry about them- no one's measuring whether your voice started at a 2 or 3. The important thing is just to go up or down correctly.)

You really have to hear them to get it, so here is a youtube video. Just listen for like 30 seconds- beyond that, she goes on to talk about other things. (You know, other things related to the fact that Chinese is totally not that hard.)

So you have nī, ní, nǐ, and nì. (And actually there's also a "5th tone" or "no tone", which is when you say it so fast that nobody can tell what tone it was.)

But Perfect Number! I listened to that youtube video like 5 times and they all sounded the same! I can never learn Chinese!

Yes, at first they do all sound the same. That's because in English it totally doesn't matter, so you're not used to paying attention to it.

(They all sounded the same for me too at the beginning. But guess what? After practicing it a billion times, they don't sound the same at all.)

Let me tell you a secret: Chinese people can't tell you offhand what tone a word is either. Maybe someone tells me "apple is píng guǒ" and as I'm writing it down, I ask what tone to put on the "ping".

And then I hear him quietly say to himself "ping ping ping ping" and then he tells me "second." He says it all 4 ways and then picks the one that matches.

And the moral of this story: Chinese people are not thinking about the tones as they talk. So don't worry, once you have enough practice, you don't have to either.

They know how to pronounce it with the right tone because that's the only way they've ever heard people say it. Not because they're thinking "okay this syllable needs the first tone, this next syllable needs the third tone..."

It would just sound weird to use the wrong tone.

When you speak English, no one ever asks you "was that a long or short A", right?

Not even the grammar police. Their only concerned with weather your using the right kind of "there." Image source.

So on one hand, the tones are totally not a big deal. With enough practice, it'll just come naturally, because you pronounce it the way you've heard it pronounced. (Personally, I don't think about the tones at all when I speak Chinese, unless it's a word that I'm unfamiliar with and I'm trying really hard to get the pronunciation right.) Also, if you get a few wrong, people can still figure out what you're saying, usually.

But on the other hand, it is really important because if you say them all wrong, no one will understand you. This is why it's SUPER SUPER important to have a Chinese person to practice with. Then they'll correct you. Easy. I think the tones would only be super-hard if you were trying to learn it completely on your own, with no audio samples of what it SHOULD sound like, and no feedback about whether or not you're close enough.

In summary: If you want to go learn Chinese, don't let anyone tell you it's too hard. I mean, it's hard- you're learning another language, what did you expect? But it's not impossible. When I started studying Chinese, I really thought it might be impossible for white people to speak Chinese, since I always heard Americans give reasons for why Chinese is "hard." Lies.

And the four tones? Totally not a big deal.

-----------------------

A quick note on the difference between the terms "Chinese" and "Mandarin." When people talk about "speaking Chinese" they almost always mean Mandarin, but there are actually many Chinese languages. As far as I can tell, everyone in China can speak Mandarin, but most of them also know a "local dialect" which is really another language. I speak Mandarin- I don't know any other Chinese languages. Most people (myself included) seem to use the terms "Chinese" and "Mandarin" interchangeably.

Click here for more posts on learning Mandarin. 

Starbucks, Gay Oreos, and Controversy

Some people want to Dump Starbucks because Starbucks issued a statement (January 2012) saying gay marriage should be legal, and that Starbucks is totally all about the inclusion and respect and "domestic partner benefits", all that stuff. (Here is more info on that story.)

I'm rather baffled about the whole thing.

On a related note, behold, the gay pride oreo:

Image source.

Unfortunately this is just photoshop. It's not a real oreo you can buy. (You'd probably die from that much sugar anyway. Or at least need a large glass of milk from a lesbian cow.)

But some people on the internet got all angry about this. And then other people on the internet got angry about the fact that people got angry. And some people (presumably in real life) are boycotting oreos and some people want to buy a ton, to show their support of oreo's support of gay marriage, and some people are completely confused about how one would even go about eating an oreo that thick.

(Seriously. It doesn't seem like a very structurally-sound design. And you know how the inside gets a little soft and melty when it's humid- especially in double-stufs?)

(Here is a blog post with an incredibly good perspective on this: My right to be offended by your existence trumps your right to exist, basically saying "What are people angry about? They're offended that oreo recognizes that gay people exist?")

And there was also a big deal made about JC Penney's Father's Day ad, featuring 2 dads.

The text says, "First Pals: What makes Dad so cool? He's the swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer and hug giver- all rolled into one. Or two." Image source.

Now I will ask a bunch of questions in an attempt to understand this.

Some people argue that companies shouldn't take a stand on a political issue. Historically, is that true? Have (seemingly-non-politics-related) companies come out with statements on political issues? Is that weird?

Some people argue that this is NOT a political issue. It's more of a human rights issue. Gay marriage is a human right. And gay people are real people. When an ad features a family with 2 gay dads, why is that a controversial "political statement"? Families like that do exist, and they're real people- they don't go about their one-dimensional lives just plotting to take over the government and destroy every straight person's family. (I mean, I assume they don't- I haven't actually asked any of them.) They just do normal-people things.

And the gay oreo- on the image it just says "Pride." You could interpret this in a lot of ways. Does it mean "gay marriage should be legal"? Does it mean "we're making a cool thing that some of our gay customers will appreciate"?

But no, it's different than a football oreo, and all those other special types of oreos. It IS a statement. They knew it would be controversial when they made that image. They made it because they think it's an important issue that they need to take a stand on.

Or maybe they're just in it for the money. Who wants to guess how many times that oreo image was shared on Facebook? That's free advertising.

And this isn't just abstract thought about "should companies make political statements?" This is about real people who get mocked or judged or excluded. And oreo is telling them "You are not alone. We support you." And maybe that's great to hear, in a culture where you just don't know how people are going to respond when they find out you're gay.

Maybe if the companies were silent on the issue, that wouldn't communicate "being neutral"- it would communicate the idea that gay people don't exist or matter. If JC Penney has ads with straight couples but not gay couples, doesn't that send the message that being straight is normal, and being gay is controversial and appalling and we can't have children seeing that? (You can argue about whether it's true that straight is "normal" and gay is "appalling"- maybe it's true, maybe not- but by not showing any gay couples, the advertisers ARE taking a side. Sometimes being silent is interpreted as agreement.)

Some people are angry that people are boycotting Starbucks. Why are they angry? People have a right to boycott whatever they want. I would assume the thinking is not "hey, you can't band together and boycott something- that's not fair!" but more along the lines of "it's terrible that they hate gay people so much that they would go to such lengths and boycott."

Are we only supposed to buy from companies whose values match perfectly with our values? Dude, it's a company. Since when do they have "values"? Besides maybe "make high-quality stuff and treat the employees/customers right." Their purpose is to sell you overpriced coffee. Their purpose is not to bring justice and human rights to the world.

But, if you were in a position of power in a company, and you thought there was a really really important issue going on in the world, and you had the power to make a statement that a lot of people would hear, shouldn't you use that power?

And the consumers' money/ purchasing decisions hold a lot of power over the company. Should consumers use that power for the greater good, and not just for getting themselves some tasty snacks?

I think part of the argument against companies that support gay rights is "You are sending the message that being gay is good and normal- but it's not. You're a bad influence." So, is there any validity here? If someone believes that gay relationships are sinful, then that statement seems to make sense. We shouldn't be encouraging something that's actually harmful.

And I feel like countering this with "you can't impose your religious beliefs on other people" doesn't work- the belief is that support for gay rights is bad for society as a whole. Therefore, people need to be warned that same-sex attraction is harmful. They could even argue that JC Penney is trying to impose on people a "religious belief" that "gay marriage isn't bad."

Maybe it comes back to the issue of whether being gay is "a choice."

Or maybe there has to be a distinction between who you are (which, in the case of being gay, is not a choice) and what you do.

Or maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe trying to make that distinction isn't helping anything. It still looks like hate to say "yeah I accept you- but you need to either become straight or be forever alone."

Or maybe it's not valid to claim that "support for gay rights is bad for society as a whole" without listening to what gay people have to say.

And at the same time, maybe you shouldn't call people bigots and assume their anger over the rainbow oreo is from intentional hatred.

So, lots of different questions/issues- I'm trying to understand all of the sides. Anyone have insight here? Or perhaps some more questions?

Image source.

edit: Oh snap, let's throw Chick-Fil-A in here too, with their position against gay marriage. How is that similar/different to the pro-gay-rights companies I've mentioned?