anythings.org

Two years ago at about this time of year, I wrote a brief essay on why I don’t celebrate Christmas*. I actually don’t celebrate any religious holiday, although I do observe some secular holidays. I feel the need to elaborate on my previous opinion and provide my readers with a little more information.

My favorite thing to say when people ask me why I don’t celebrate Christmas is: “I have integrity.” I admit, it is snarky and tends to rub my beliefs in people’s faces. It makes me sound like I think I’m better than them. Well, for some people… this is true, for other people it’s not. Regardless of my snakr, my integrity truly is the reason I don’t celebrate Christmas.

Christmas infuriates me.

People say “Christmas is about family!” or “Christmas is about giving!” Except, really, it’s not.

Christmas is supposed to be about Jesus’s birthday. It’s a religious holiday. I’m not religious, ergo I don’t celebrate. This is where my integrity comes in. I’m not going to throw my religious beliefs down the toilet because someone wants to buy me a gift to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Last time I checked, Jesus was a pretty low key guy - he was fairly unmaterialistic. I’d think religious conservatives would be a little offended that th ebirth of their god’s son has been turned into the most disastrous and stressful holiday of the year. You’d think they’d be outraged that his celebration is associated with mountains of credit card debt, shopping, and bitchy people waiting in line to buy the latest Coach purse or the new iPod for their teenager. But they’re not. And if they are, they aren’t doing anything about it (except for Rev. Billy). Why aren’t they doing anything about it? Because not celebrating Christmas is tantamount to terrorism: you are unAmerican if you don’t celebrate Christmas.

Here’s another thought for the religious bunch: Jesus wasn’t born in December 25th, Luke suggests that he was born in the spring or summer. You’d think religious folk would be outraged at the misrepresentation of this most sacred day, and that they’d boycott Christmas because of it. You’d think that they would form new traditions during the time of year that Jesus really was born. But they don’t. Why?

Continuing with this, you’d think liberals and non-religious folk would be outraged at the association of Christianity and its many tenets with Christmas. You’d also think that political liberals would be outraged at the credit card debt, economic struggle, and environmental hazards associated with Christmas. But they’re not either.

So why aren’t people mad about Christmas? Probably because people love getting gifts. I’d hate to break down a potentially complicated situation into something so simple, but that’s the only solution I’m left with. If conservatives aren’t sticking to the holiday’s traditional roots and liberals and non-religious people aren’t protesting the obvious problems with the holiday, then there has to be something so simple, so small, so obvious getting in the way. Sure, it could be the time you spend with your family… but if you need a quasi-religious holiday to make up a reason to spend time with your family, you should probably rethink your family structure.

I guess the most difficult part for me about not celebrating Christmas is that my view isn’t respected. If I didn’t celebrate Christmas because I was Jewish, people would nod, smile, and say “Happy Holidays”. But when I tell people that I don’t celebrate any holidays in the month of December because I’m not religious, they get confused and ask why. When I complain that my right to not be Christian is being violated because employers play Christmas carols, I get laughed at by the people I complain to. Actually, at one job, I was given disciplinary action because I didn’t play the Christmas carols CD during the shift I was supervising. They tell me that Christmas isn’t a religious holiday and that I shouldn’t be offended. They tell me I should stop being such a Grinch and just celebrate like everyone else does. People don’t even try to comprehend the reasons why I choose not to celebrate Christmas: they are so confused by it that they mock it instead of trying to understand.

The ridiculous thing is, it’s just assumed that you celebrate Christmas. I guarantee you when I go grocery shopping a week before Christmas, someone is going to tell me “Merry Christmas” - or “Happy Holidays” if they’re trying to be politically correct. While I could smile, shrug it off, and say “you, too”, I don’t think that’s very fair. I shouldn’t have to fall prey to the fact that it’s assumed I’m ignorant of the holiday’s meaning. When people tell me “Merry Christmas”, I tell them “oh, thanks, but I don’t celebrate the holidays”. Most people just smile and leave it at that, but others ask why. “I’m not religious” is usually my answer, but that tends to prompt more questions. So I’m kind of stuck in a Catch-22: I want people to respect my beliefs and my decision to not celebrate Christmas, but I don’t want to spend 3 hours trying to explain to them that it’s a religious holiday and that’s why I don’t celebrate it.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not just about religion: it’s about all the ridiculous notions included in with the celebration of Christmas. For example, “tradition” denotes that you should celebrate the holiday by giving gifts to those you care about. But we are not allowed to ask people directly what they want because it’s supposed to be a surprise. They’re left to return, discard, or re-gift the item that was given to them. In addition to this, you always have your list of “obligation gifts”: the people you give gifts to because you have to, not because you want to. These people can include anyone from your boss to someone you hardly know, but it is socially required that you give them gifts.

I guess, really, the only thing I can do is encourage people to BUY HANDMADE (from me!) this year, instead of going to your local mall and buying something heartless and made without love that is probably going to be returned, regifted, or discarded. At least when you buy handmade you know you’re supporting the artist and the loving detail, attention, and skill they put into their products.

Edit: I can’t believe people are actually criticizing Madonna and calling her a scrooge for this.
* Source for statistics, quotes, etc.

Equality is an abstract concept. I don’t believe that it is something that can easily be defined. But apparently, every year, the World Economic Forum thinks it can easily define gender equality. This year, the evaluated 128 countries. The WEF just released the Global Gender Gap Report for 2007. According to their website, it measures gender equality across the following four areas:

1. Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
2. Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
3. Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
4. Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio

I sat and stared at these categories for awhile and tried to figure out what about them it was that bothered me. It took me some time and a lot of thinking, but then I realized it. And it was so obvious. They didn’t even consider choice. And I’m not talking about pro-choice or anti-choice, I’m talking about the choice to excel economically or to be a stay at home father.

You can’t measure choice. And if you can’t measure choice, how can you measure equality?

A huge part of equality is the fact that you get to choose what you do with your equality. Yes, there is 20% female labor force participation in Saudi Arabia… but is it because they want to be in the work force, or is it because they have to? In the 7 countries I looked at closely (Sweden #1, Ireland #9, United Kingdom #11, Canada #18, United States #31, Saudi Arabia #124, Yemen #128) the workforce participation of men always exceeded that of women. Mozambique, which was rated #1 in Economic Participation and Opportunity (#43 overall, #120 in educational attainment), in contrast, has 85% of women but only 35% of men in the labor force population. This is also the same country that received the worst score possible on polygamy, an extremely poor score on legislation preventing violence against women, and a mid-range score on genital cutting (the report says “female genital mutilation”). How much do you think choice has to do with women being members of the labor population?

Studies such as these rely heavily on statistics and the use of surveys, which, to a point, delivers the facts. But the statistics deliver facts in a very scientific way. This study doesn’t taken into account the satisfaction people feel towards their gender equality - or lack thereof. While it is a huge step that studies like this are being done, they have yet to catch up with the things that are most important when it comes to equality. The study does make for a very interesting read, and I do encourage you to read it… but do so with a grain of salt. Statistics only give you the numbers, they don’t give you the satisfaction people feel in regards to their home, finances, government, or overall quality of life.

I feel that I should also mention the statistical profiles on each individual country mention nothing about gay marriage.

For those interested in the study, other information provided in individual country reports are:

• Mean age of marriage for women
• Fertility rate in births per woman
• Year women received the right to vote (which they list as 1965 in the United States…)
• Overall population sex ratio
• Maternity and Childbearing: births attended to by skilled health staff, contraceptive practices among married women, maternal and infant mortality rate, length of paid maternity leave, maternity leave benefits, provider of maternity coverage, adolescent fertility rate.
• Education and Training: percentage of female primary, secondary, and tertiary teachers
• Employment and Earnings: female and male adult unemployment rates, women in non-agricultural paid labor, ability of women to rise to position of enterprise leadership
• Basic Rights and Social Institutions: paternal versus maternal authority, “female genital mutilation”, polygamy, existence of legislation punishing acts of violence against women

Sweden (0.815*), the #1 ranked country on overall gender quality, also received the best score possible in all the Basic Rights and Social Institutions categories and the statistical equivalent of gender equality in terms of Educational Attainment (but they did not rank #1 for this).
* 0.00 = inequality, 1.00 = equality

The problem is complicated, the solution is simple (according to one judge): just say you’re sorry.

Eight boys in Australia filmed their sexual assault of a 17 year old girl and “distributed it as a DVD throughout the community”. You’d think that a filmed record of the event and their confessions along with guilty pleas would secure these boys some time in a juvenile detention facility… but it didn’t:

All except one of the boys had convictions recorded against them. The judge placed six of the boys on youth supervision orders for between 12 and 18 months and two of the boys were placed on probation for 12 months.

He said that if it was not for their guilty pleas and willingness to participate in rehabilitation they would have been at “significant risk” of serving time in youth detention.

Each of the boys had previously pleaded guilty to procuring sexual penetration by intimidation, making child pornography and assault.

[…] He said the program would involve the boys and their families engaging in individually tailored treatment over about nine months.

Of course they were willing to participate in rehabilitation! It was either that or they were going to end up in jail or juvenile detention. Instead of being punished using the legal system, the judge granted them nine months of “tailored” therapy. Now, while I may be a strong advocate for alternative punishments, this is not a punishment: it’s therapy. I was a Psychology major in college (I have a Bachelor’s degree in the subject), so I am well versed on the different forms of therapy and behavior modification. Probably the most important thing to understand about any type of therapy is that it does not work for everyone.

While certain psychological aspects do come into play here - namely, group think - the bottom line is these boys need to be held responsible for their actions. All the therapy in the world won’t do that for them unless they are willing. Sure, they pleaded guilty and were eager to participate in rehab, but that doesn’t mean they sincerely felt they did something wrong and needed to be punished.

In the nine months those boys spend in therapy, I’m willing to bet their victim will be doing the same thing. And at the end of that nine months, I’m willing to bet none of them - including the attackers - will be completely healed, cured, or free of remorse and pain. Nothing will have changed at the end of those nine months, except that poor girl will probably still be in therapy and have large medical bills as a result. How is this fair?

This is a misuse of the legal system, plain and simple.

Facebook just unveiled their latest advertising program. This plan utilizes information from user’s profiles to display ads appropriate to their interests when they browse through their friend’s pages:

Additionally, Facebook has unveiled targeted advertisements that will allow marketers to target by any information inside Facebook profiles, from relationship status to favorite television shows.

This makes sense. Gmail utilizes a tool that skims through your inbox and displays appropriate in-line advertisements. Users are accustomed to this type of privacy invasion.

One thing about the new advertising program that irritates me is Facebook is essentially encouraging advertising companies to provide users with the tools to sell their product for them. Without paying any additional advertising fees:

Called Facebook Ads, the new program is threefold: advertisers can create branded pages, run targeted advertisements, and have access to intelligence and analytics pertaining to the site’s more than 50 million users. […] Through the branded pages program, advertisers can design custom pages with information, content, and custom applications–”any application that was written for users on the Facebook Platform,” Zuckerberg explained. Facebook users can sign up as “fans” of that brand, install branded applications, and other activities that will all show up in their profiles’ “mini feeds” and on the “news feeds” that are broadcast to their friends lists.

So as soon as this program rolls out, I’ll be seeing “Jessica loves Hershey’s! She added the ‘Give me Kisses!’ application to her profile.” and the like scattered throughout my News Feed. Which, by the way, you cannot customize. While you can adjust your News Feed settings to show you “more” or “less” of your friends pictures, relationships status changes, and other options, you cannot opt out of forced announcements such as advertisements and applications. There’s motivation behind this: corporate-branded applications are one of the new components of Facebook’s advertising scheme.
It is one thing to provide companies with access to user information in order to reach a more applicable audience, but it’s another to open the Facebook coding to companies with a desire to create applications in which their only motivation is to make a profit. Facebook is basically allowing advertisers to recruit mindless college students to advertise their products for them. Who needs employees, commercials, and expensive marketing schemes when you have Facebook? The idea of Facebook applications alone irritates me, but applications whose only purpose is advertising and profiting from that exposure? Irritated doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I wonder what social networking site researcher danah boyd has to say about this one…

By now, I’m sure you’ve all heard of the writer’s strike. Personally, I stand with the writers. The internet is not too new. The television and film industry has an opportunity to do something huge with these contracts, something that the major record labels never did. The major labels reacted to the internet with fear by utilizing DRM technology and basically saying they don’t trust their customers. The record industry committed suicide. The television and film industries, however, in their [hopefully] upcoming deals with writers will realize the internet’s potential and harness the power of unlimited opportunities.

Everywhere I turn, there are websites (even CNN) asking readers to submit their thoughts on how the writer’s strike will impact them. These websites are asking their readers “how will you survive without TV? What will you do instead of watching TV?” Is this really a question we need to be asking?

In a culture of burgeoning waistlines and increasing cholesterol levels, do we really need to encourage the masses to sit on their butts and watch TV? I’m sure Blockbuster, Netflix and other video rental centers are going to see a huge increase in movie rentals when everyone’s favorite programs start going into reruns. Maybe - just maybe - instead of relying on the various forms of entertainment provided by the Idiot Box, you should consider something a little less sedentary. Walk the dog, you probably have one. Play with your kids, clean your house, wash the car. Get your house ready for the winter. Or, if you’re into knowledge, read a book. While it may not get you off the couch, it’ll get your brain working a way that television just doesn’t.

Beyond that, there’s the actual sides of the debate that are more important than the fact that people are going to have to live “without TV” for an undetermined amount of time. The big wigs are saying that the internet is “too new” and it’s future is undetermined, therefore, it’s impossible to negotiate media used on the internet into new contracts. I laughed when I heard this. Yes, the future of the internet may be undetermined… but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t negotiate for what exists now, and leave room in the contracts for vague options. It really is about money: not for the writers, but for the big corporations, and just how much they can keep from the writers.

Apparently, men don’t think Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive. This probably because she’s over 25 and has wrinkles, but I digress. The readers in an online poll at Maxim voted her as unsexy. The best part? She doesn’t give a shit. One more reason to love SJP:

Sarah Jessica Parker is nonplussed at her most most recent accolade: being named the Unsexiest Woman Alive by an online magazine poll in America. “What they don’t know is that one day I’ll wake up fat,” the Sex and the City star says. “But I’ll still be happy, just like I am now. I believe in the old ’sticks and stones’ philosophy, so frankly their words don’t come close to hurting.”

My question is why did Maxim feel the need to single out SJP and call her unsexy? Why did they think it was ok for them to do that? Men’s magazines never seen to get it right when it comes to women… not like that’s a big shocker.
Source, source.

Apparently, we have returned to the classic stereotype that if a heterosexual man has an affair, it is his female partner’s fault. I am just as aghast at the comments to this article as I am with the actual text. Summary: Emily is a busy lawyer with a husband and two year old son. She hasn’t had sex with her husband for months. He had an affair. It’s her fault because she didn’t want to have sex. Feminism is to blame!

Except, the author of the article doesn’t mention that Emily asked to have a separate bedroom from her husband until you’re about halfway through the article. I highly doubt Emily not wanting to have sex was the reason the relationship deteriorated. And, in typical male fashion, her husband didn’t talk to her about the problem. What did he do? He went and stuck his dick in something else that was warmer and loving. I highly doubt sex was what drove this relationship apart.

The author also has the gall to compare sex with chores. The entire article is based on the assumption that because women are finally “allowed” to say “no” to sex with their partners (thanks, feminism!) they are alienating their partners and ruining their relationships. If the only problem in the relationship is the woman doesn’t want to have sex, you’d think the man would up and say something instead of having an affair or ending the relationship. Don’t you think it would be much easier to say “honey, I’d like to have a talk about our sex life”? It takes two people to make a relationship work. When my boyfriend and I experienced the same thing (hey, in my defense, the transition from college to a 40 hour work week is not an easy one… especially when he still works odd hours) he spoke with me about it. I realized what was happening, and it was probably the funnest I’ve ever had solving a problem in my relationship. The thing is, I didn’t realize I was doing it. I doubt these women realize what they are “doing” to their husbands.
Apparently, it’s not. It’s just easier to blame feminism, because feminism is an easy scapegoat. People don’t like feminism because of how it has been represented because of ridiculous articles like this. They get mad because they think feminists are out to destroy men and take away their higher pay, role as breadwinners and rightful place in the patriarchy. While some feminists aspire to do many of those things, this is not the feminism that has allowed women to say “no” to their husbands.

The feminism that allowed women to say “no” to their husbands is responsible for the Supreme Court ruling that yes spousal rape does exist. There was a time before feminism when women could say no: it just didn’t mean anything. It meant you were going to have sex whether you liked it or not. It meant your husband, the partner who you were supposed to love with all your heart and be with for the rest of your life, was going to rape you because he wanted to and you didn’t. Are we returning to this? Is this really what we’ve come back to? If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her partner, it would probably be more logical to examine the situation closely rather than to just make a snap judgment and blame feminism. I highly doubt the same thing is happening in every relationship where a woman is saying “no” to her partner.

Blaming women for their husband’s affairs, regardless of the excuse (feminism, bad wife, etc), is an outdated idea that returns to the Biblical notion of women as the ones who are dirty and sinful. Men can do no wrong! It’s not their fault their wife is bad in bed! She should know exactly what he wants, at all times, without asking! It’s like in Mona Lisa Smile when Betty’s husband has an affair and she wants a divorce: she gets blamed by her mother for the downfall of the marriage. Betty’s marriage didn’t fall apart because she was frigid and didn’t have sex with her husband: her marriage fell apart because she wasn’t even 21 and had no idea what she wanted from life, let alone a life partner.

I will be the first person to admit that sex is important in my relationships. It is not, however, important in every relationship. These women and their partners may not hold the same views on the importance of sex in their relationship. Perhaps the problem was they had different expectations for their sex lives that they had not discussed with each other. There is one thing more important than sex in all relationships, and that is communication. If you can’t communicate what you do and don’t want from your partner, then it is your own fault when your expectations are not met and you are unhappy. It’s not feminism’s fault. It’s your own.

Just a small bit of house cleaning…

In order to keep things mature, adult and respectful, it is now required that you register with a valid email address before posting a comment. A minor function of this is to help remove the more frequent spam I have been receiving on the site, but the larger function is that it also allows me to get to know my readers.

I want to know who is commenting here, even if you disagree with my opinions. I don’t mind there being dissent in my comments (quite frankly, the more the merrier - give me something to respond to!), but I’d at least like to know if it is a regular reader or a random passer-by.

If you find this 5 second procedure (really, all it asks for is your name and email address, then it sends you a password) to be too painful to comment on something I’ve written, please feel free to drop me an email with your comments. Which, really, in the long run, will take more time than registering once.

I will be writing more frequently now that things are settled in and I am starting to finish reworking the entire site, and it can only benefit me to know who you are! I promise, I won’t email you or give out you information - really, who has the time?