Category Archives: Uncategorized

Religion and the War in Bathrooms (Locker Rooms, Changing Areas, Showers….)


As everyone who doesn’t live under a rock knows by now, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has directed all US public  schools to open their heretofore sex-segregated facilities, such as bathrooms, to members of the other sex who claim to be trans. Note that a claim is all that’s needed. No psychiatrist’s letter, no evidence of hormones ingested or surgery survived need be produced. Just the claim.


The famed Johns Hopkins University Hospital stopped doing trans surgery many years ago. Doctors there discovered that surgery did not solve the patients’ problems. They were just as depressed, just as likely to commit suicide. They merely looked different, and had to take hormones to maintain that look. Surgery, in other words, made no difference to the patients’ health. In fact, because of surgical complications and those arising from hormone use, their lives may have been shortened.


In the New York Times today is another article on the extraordinary position the DOJ has taken – linking sex to gender. Juxtaposed against it is an article elsewhere, discussing a rumor that Caitlyn Jenner may de-transition back to looking like a man, due to a sustained sexual attraction to women and a religious belief that same-sex dating is wrong. Trans-ness is clearly not akin to the legally protected category of genetic sex. One cannot change sex – every cell in one’s body contains the same telltale chromosomes (most often, XX or XY). But the naming of one’s gender identity can be fluid.


The trans population is very very small. Most of them are man-to-woman, and most opt to retain their penises. In contrast, the pool of genetic females is huge, over 50% of the American population. Yet the DOJ is willing to toss them under the bus in order to satisfy the desires – not the needs, but the desires – of a tiny percentage of genetic males. Predators who are truly trans clearly number quite few. But predators who are genetically male are numerous, and like all predators – jackals, for example – will do anything to gain access to victims for their own voyeuristic and/or assaultive ends. Such as claim to be trans in order to gain access to the private spaces of girls and women. If you scoff at that idea, you have not really thought it through, not with the attention to detail used by predators. You are, in fact, naïve.


One factor no one has yet mentioned in this discussion is religion. The DOJ is either ignoring religion or pretending it has no application here. Yet religion – though it can be changed – is also a protected category within the discussion of civil rights. In the US, whose Constitution mandates the separation of church and state, we take a dim view of forced or urged religious changes. So the right to practice one’s religion – with some adjustments for public safety – is well-protected.


Very well, imagine I’m a female student at a public high school, and I am terrified of the DOJ’s edict. My Muslim family is strictly observant. I am not allowed to even talk to boys for fear of endangering my purity, and the idea of a genetic male seeing me disrobed in the changing room or shower frightens me, because my particular form of Islamic practice not only forbids that, but also encourages my father to punish me for undressing in front of a boy. Yet my high school will not provide accommodations for me to slip in and out of gymwear (which my religion considers already immodest in its design, so I wear trousers underneath) in private. My PE teacher says I must accept this genetic boy. “Suck it up,” are her exact words.


My father, however, will hit the roof. Not only am I not permitted by the school and DOJ to practice my religious beliefs as I have been taught, I fear my father’s wrath. I will be lucky if he simply beats me. He might go farther. I might become a so-called “honor” killing victim.


Now imagine I am a different female student at the same public school. Last year a male classmate raped me. Perhaps I told people; perhaps I kept silent. Yet the memories haunt me: the smell of him, his eyes, the way he made me look at his penis before he rammed it into me. It was horrible, it was trauma, and since then I regard boys — any boy — as potential attackers. It is tough for me to get through the fifty minutes of my crowded chemistry class without feeling sick. A genetic male, no matter his claim of trans, in what has been the one place in this school where I am not confronted by boys, makes me physically ill. I feel re-violated. If I do not find a way to escape this dreadful situation, I may have to end the pain permanently by committing suicide.


So, DOJ, what now? Still think the desires of a tiny trans population should override the need for safety and a feeling of privacy held by millions of genetic females? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness – since happiness cannot co-exist with voyeurism, assault, or PTSD – are fine concepts for everyone except genetic females? What type of disordered thinking is that?


In New York City some years ago, having hidden a camera within a stuffed toy, a worried parent discovered her child’s nanny was physically abusing the infant, who was too young to talk. This was the first case of “nanny-cam” to come to public attention. People were outraged.


So was the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). For several days, the ACLU’s spokesman (yes, it was a man) railed against the terrible injustices stacked against the poor nanny. Spied on! Hidden camera! Her right to privacy trampled! What was the US coming to when Gestapo-like techniques could be employed by anyone?


That ridiculous, absurd, dangerous ACLU response died when thousands of citizens – including longstanding ACLU members who mailed in their ripped-up cards – vigorously responded: The nanny was committing crimes, and the parents were well within their rights to discover how their child was being attacked and by whom.


The DOJ’s ukase here reminds me of when the ACLU sided with the nanny. It carries the same whiff of wounded outrage, and the same lack of research. Here, into the various ways genetic females might be hurt.


In law, one speaks of the “slippery slope”, how a legal decision can have far-reaching consequences unforeseen at the time.


Yet the consequences of the DOJ’s overreach are easy to forecast. All it takes is imagination . . . and empathy for genetic females.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Of Course, It’s the Bare Shoulders! (Facepalm)

The past year has been enlivened and simultaneously made awful by report after report of girls’ clothing criticized, banned, and all but torn off them by school officials eager to note that nearby boys – and some male teachers – are critically distracted by a bare shoulder or the glimpse of a leg.


It’s sad. It’s ridiculous, It’s also terribly ignorant and naïve.


While these people — possibly well-intentioned on some level . . . the 19th century one — go after the local girls, to what must be the amazement and confusion of their male classmates, what in heaven’s name do they, the officials, imagine the boys have been watching the night before? Perhaps, in the case of early risers, that very morning before classes began?


Do they believe the male-owned phones and laptops were turned to Election 2016 news with its dueling speeches, lies, bravado? How about national tragedies like cyclones and floods?


Sports! Perhaps the boys were watching sports and reviewing how unlikely the Leicester City English Premiership victory really was – at 5000-to-1 odds, a bona fide miracle – or counting down the days until North American ice hockey’s Stanley Cup.


Think so?


Get real. Chances are good that an unhealthy proportion of middle-school and high-school boys are watching internet porn in their off hours. There, the featured bodies wear nothing at all.


If teenage guys are getting stiffies (haven’t they always?), it’s much more to do with their imaginations and what they watched on their iPads at midnight than what the girl in algebra class is wearing.


I offer for evidence a segment of J. K. Rowling’s highly praised The Casual Vacancy — in this section, the two high-school boys, Andrew and Fats, live in a charming small town in the west of England. One has teachers for parents; the other, a nurse and a printing plant manager:


“Andrew knew what naked women looked like, because there were no parental controls on the computer in Fats’ conversion bedroom. Together they had explored as much online porn as they could access for free: shaven vulvas; pink labia pulled wide to show darkly gaping slits; spread buttocks revealing the puckered buttons of anuses; thickly lipsticked mouths, dripping semen . . . Andrew was unsure whether he was more excited or repulsed (whips and saddles, harnesses, ropes, hoses; and once, at which even Fats had not managed to laugh, close-ups of metal-bolted contraptions, and needles protruding from soft flesh, and women’s face frozen, screaming) . . ..”


Who in their right mind would believe a classmate’s shoulder blade or lower thigh could distract after that?


Recall, too, that images once seen remain in the brain forever, especially images of horror or seduction.


In fact, it makes more sense to protect girls from the corrupting influence of boys and male administrators (the latter no doubt enjoying their own favorite online images) than the reverse. As witness, the rise in male adolescents’ requests for unusual sexual behaviors; the pressure on girls to audibly perform like porn stars; and the increase in labiaplasties, even in teenagers.


To those teachers and administrators who are all too willing to enforce what are sometimes ridiculous, humiliating dress codes that focus more on girls than on boys – shame on you! Take the log from your own eye before you object to the mote in another person’s. Recognize that, in the 21st century, what you object to has nothing to do with distraction – as if a knee could compete with “pink labia pulled wide to show darkly gaping slits” – and everything to do with blame and control.


Honi soit qui mal y pense: Shamed be the person who thinks evil exists where it does not.


Leave a comment

Filed under Teenage boys, Teenage girls, Uncategorized

In the Boxing Ring … at School

Should students at American high schools pack boxing gloves?

Ben Fields, who made headlines in October by upending a seated 16-year-old female high school student, tossing her to the side, then dragging her toward the classroom door, has been fired. This school “officer”, presumably employed to keep minors safe from well-armed attackers – generally, white male adolescents – was videoed in his actions by students too appalled and scared to stop him… using mobile phones. The alleged infraction of the girl whom Fields assaulted? Failing to put away her phone. Luckily, the moment Fields arrived, other students began to video him. The ironies abound.

Americans have mixed reactions. Some law-and-order types believe Fields was well within his rights. They see the girl as a trouble-maker (for refusing to set aside a small piece of electronics?), and despite her reputation as a quiet, no-fuss student grieving after the recent deaths of both her mother and grandmother, think Fields’s response was not disproportionate.

Many other watchers disagree. The girl was causing no ruckus, they say, the class was in no way threatened by noise-making or disruption, and the teacher should have been able to guide his class effectively without calling out the big guns of Fields, whose nickname at school was “Officer Slam”. That nickname itself is telling.

Also telling is his weight. Fields, who also acts as the school’s football conditioning coach, reportedly weighs 300 pounds and can bench press 600 pounds. According to World Boxing Association measurements, that puts him in the heavyweight category, its top ranking. The high school student looks like she weighs no more than 150 pounds and perhaps much less. At 150 pounds, she would be designated a super-welterweight.

When was the last time you saw two distinctly different weights meeting in the ring? Never. Never.

Had the two people both been male, in a training gym, they would not have been allowed in the same ring, even during sparring practice, because the risk of harm to the smaller boxer would be too great. No responsible coach or gym owner would permit such a meeting.

Yet some people lauded Fields for upending, tossing, dragging, and presumably injuring the girl. Would they do the same for a Mike Tyson (heavyweight) in the ring with the much-lighter Oscar de la Hoya? No way.

Much has been made of the fact that although Fields is white and the student is black, Fields could not be racist – or sexist – because his girlfriend is allegedly black. (If there is such a woman, I hope she has moved on.) That assumption flies in the face of experience. Racists often have intimate relations with those they despise – nearly every Confederate slave-owner did, in order to increase his investment by impregnating women he controlled – and sexist men can be married with daughters.

We all anticipate a lawsuit. It would be hard for the student not to win in court when Fields’s supervisor, Sheriff Leon Lott, reportedly said that watching the video footage made him want “to throw up”. From a sheriff, those are powerful words.

Students should not have to face school with fear. To fear the men – and some women – charged and paid to protect them is ridiculous and horrifying. To fear bodily injury from a school officer who far outweighs you is outrageous.

To those of you who thought the muscular, 300-pound Fields was acting responsibly: Get outraged.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

When Corporate America Hides the Truth

We’ve known for several years that tobacco companies cached the truth from us and hid the knowledge that tobacco use endangers our health by promoting cancers, heart disease, etcetera. Small wonder that the biggest market for US tobacco is now China, where Freedom of Information Acts are nonexistent and thus the dangers of tobacco are as unknown as they were in America in the 1920s. A New York Times article posits that one-third of all young men in China will die of tobacco-related diseases. The Times suggests that the Chinese government will be slow to halt the epidemic rise of smoking: “Antismoking efforts in China face a difficult political situation: The central government has a monopoly through the Chinese National Tobacco Corporation, and more than 7 percent of government revenue comes from it.”

Meanwhile, in the US, tobacco use continues to decline, due to the spread of the truth.

The Coca-Cola Company, meanwhile, has allegedly been paying for faux science to show its products (full of sugar and sugar substitutes) are not contributors to American obesity. Instead, their paid “scientists” insist, it’s all down to lack of exercise… when current studies suggest the exact opposite: that we eat ourselves into overweight and we can fast our way out of it, eliminating many cases of diabetes and cancer, and improving heart health.

So who are the latest corporate liars? Turns out they’ve been major oil companies.

Remember how for years – oops, decades – the companies that refine the fuel you use in your car pooh-poohed climate change? How they laughed, how they got angry, how they acted with disdain? How they funded their own faux studies to “prove” that burning carbon products had no effect on climate? How they characterized climate change activists as crazy loons?

It appears that all this time, they were foxing us.

The Times, again, reporting: “Had Exxon been upfront at the time about the dangers of the greenhouse gases we were spewing into the atmosphere, we might have begun decades ago to develop a less carbon-intensive energy path to avert the worst impacts of a changing climate. Amazingly, politicians are still debating the reality of this threat, thanks in no small part to industry disinformation.”

“As early as 1977, one of Exxon’s senior scientists warned a gathering of oilmen of a ‘general scientific agreement’ that the burning of fossil fuels was influencing the climate. A year later, he had updated his assessment, warning that ‘present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.’”

The late 1970s. Forty years ago. Forty years that could have been put to better use to develop technologies that avoid the use of fossil fuels… but were instead wasted.

Is there any US corporation willing to put the truth front and center? How about when it impacts others’ health? When it impacts their own employees’ health, and that of their children and grandchildren?

Apparently not.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

What If Other People Made You Use Your Teeth Only For Smiling?

Many people still fail to understand breastfeeding. They are not all grandiose males like Donald Trump, who “lost it” at an attorney who wanted to take a pre-scheduled and agreed-upon lunch break to pump her baby’s food in a private office, unwatched by anyone.

Some people who fail to understand are corporate employees, like those at a Walmart who refused to print photos showing a baby at the breast (Walmart rejects photos involving “sexual content”; it walked back from its stance and apologized to the baby’s mother, acknowledging that breastfeeding is not sexual).

Some of those who live in ignorance are even female (presumably those who fed their babies formula, or who are childfree); according to one survey, these women are apt to toss dirty looks or snide comments at those who are feeding their babies from the breast.

That we should still, in the United States, be at such woeful levels of ignorance, willing to let babies obtain less than their mothers are willing to give – in 2015! – is simply astounding.

Look, I get it, you’re all for breastfeeding . . . until it impinges on your consciousness. Until someone does it near you. Until you feel embarrassed (why?) and turn your head.

Until, that is, you see breasts being used for their designed purpose.

However you think the animal world developed (nature; one god; multiple gods; “seeding” from an alien planet; fill-in-your-theory-here), the fact is that mammary glands developed to feed mammalian babies and small offspring. That is their FUNCTION.

Now, you may find breasts attractive, especially if you are male or lesbian. That is RESPONSE, which may be sexual.

You may think breasts should never be displayed without a bra or bikini top, however skimpy it is. Or you may believe that unbound breasts belong only on glossy pages or in the pixels of online porn. That is FASHION.

When women breastfeed their babies and small children, their breasts are fulfilling the function for which they were designed. They are making no attempt to be sexual (especially if the baby has begun to bite – nothing sexual about that – or if the mother is battling infection, ditto on the lack of sexiness). If watchers who do not turn their eyes elsewhere respond in a sexual manner (not all males or lesbians do), their response is on them.

Some people believe that human breasts can be displayed for fashion (on the beach, for modeling, in low-cut dresses – Donald Trump seems to be onboard with his wife Melania’s lavish display of frontage here and here and here) but not for function.

Imagine someone insisting that your teeth are fine in a smile, but should not be used for chewing or biting, at least not within plain sight.

“I like to see your teeth, they’re beautiful, you have a gorgeous smile, but when they’re mixed up with food? With eating? God, no! Don’t show me functioning teeth!”

Ridiculous, right?

So is disparaging breastfeeding that’s going on near you. If you have a negative response, look away – there’s tons to see elsewhere. You’re envious, or jealous? Deal with it internally. You think the breast should be more covered, even though babies often wrench covers off because they feel hot and stifled? Look away and chill. If that woman were not breastfeeding, but instead were wearing a low-cut shirt, would you have the same reaction? You might – but that would be an objection to fashion.

Objecting to function will never make sense. Try using your teeth for smiling – only smiling – for an entire day, 24 hours. No biting, no chewing, nothing that will gain you nourishment.

Teeth are made for more than smiling. They have a function.

Breasts are made for more than pretty. Their function is to feed small humans the milk that nature intended, that is made specifically for that child’s needs. There is so much right in that, that to object to it seems irrational.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

In Sheep’s Clothing: Using Religion to Camouflage Pain

Occasionally, a newspaper report comes out that is so horrifying, so disruptive of inner peace, that it demands re-posting. The front-page New York Times report today on the sexual enslavement of women and girls by the group calling themselves ISIS is one such journalistic event.

Here is the link. Please read it all, even if you have to take breaks in between paragraphs.

Note that the men in this so-called holy group are equal opportunity torturers (yes, rape is torture). As this 2014 Wall Street Journal report shows, they rape and mutilate (FGM is mutilation) at will.

It is the creation of rape and enslavement as a business supposedly underpinned by God that is detailed in the Times report. A few quotes for those who haven’t the stomach to read the whole article:

–“In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.

“He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.

“When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.

“’I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,’” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “’He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God,’” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.

–“ A growing body of internal policy memos and theological discussions has established guidelines for slavery, including a lengthy how-to manual issued by the Islamic State Research and Fatwa Department just last month. Repeatedly, the ISIS leadership has emphasized a narrow and selective reading of the Quran and other religious rulings to not only justify violence, but also to elevate and celebrate each sexual assault as spiritually beneficial, even virtuous.”

–“[The girls and women] would be held in confinement, some for days, some for months. Then, inevitably, they were loaded into the same fleet of buses again before being sent in smaller groups to Syria or to other locations inside Iraq, where they were bought and sold for sex.

“It was 100 percent preplanned,” said Khider Domle, a Yazidi community activist who maintains a detailed database of the victims. “I spoke by telephone to the first family who arrived at the Directory of Youth in Mosul, and the hall was already prepared for them. They had mattresses, plates and utensils, food and water for hundreds of people.”

— “In a pamphlet published online in December, the Research and Fatwa Department of the Islamic State detailed best practices, including explaining that slaves belong to the estate of the fighter who bought them and therefore can be willed to another man and disposed of just like any other property after his death.

“Recent escapees describe an intricate bureaucracy surrounding their captivity, with their status as a slave registered in a contract. When their owner would sell them to another buyer, a new contract would be drafted, like transferring a property deed.”

— [From the verified account of a woman also kidnapped and raped]: “’He destroyed her body. She was badly infected. The fighter kept coming and asking me, ‘Why does she smell so bad?’ And I said, she has an infection on the inside, you need to take care of her,’” the woman said.

“Unmoved, he ignored the girl’s agony, continuing the ritual of praying before and after raping the child.

“I said to him, ‘She’s just a little girl,’” the older woman recalled. “And he answered: ‘No. She’s not a little girl. She’s a slave. And she knows exactly how to have sex. And having sex with her pleases God.’”

Regardless of our own political affiliation, regardless of our own gender, our own history or religion, surely we can see what these men are. They’re Nazis, dressed up in robes. They use religion as Hitler and Goebbels used political division and the power to destroy. They’re wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing, bleating how they’re doing the will of God, purifying the race, blah blah blah, whatever is the slogan du jour.

It’s not enough to tear off the sheepskins they hide under.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Time To Redo This Ten-Year-Old Research – and Examine Men This Time

(To my readers: A recent move and downsizing has been a bit of chaos. Culling is tough – and worth it, since less is easier to re-move than more. Still unsettled, but with reliable internet, I’m back to the blog. Thanks for reading!)

When was the last time you heard of a man who, newly separated or about to be from his girlfriend/lover/wife, murdered her… and often her children? It happens often enough. Here and here and here. This man had the chutzpah to claim his religion allowed him to murder his wife. This man set up the murder to look like an anti-Muslim hate crime. This man, a police officer, murdered two of his small children as well as his wife.

What were these guys thinking???

Often enough, the relationship is discovered post-mortem to be replete with abusive and controlling behavior on the part of the husbands. They monitor where their wives go, who they talk to. They insult them, attack them with words and fists. They apparently believe that to do so is “manly”. Especially to a smaller person who would not be permitted under current rules to enter the same boxing ring.

Bad enough, right? Definitely cause for friends and family to haul her to safety and haul him over the coals.

Yet to accelerate to murder?

In all this household culling, I’ve unearthed articles I printed out once upon a time. Most have been trashed. Several, I kept, including this one entitled (it was 2005) “Why breaking up is hard to do for women”. In it, the author quotes a study of brain research that found that “brain activity associated with separation grief follows a unique pattern that is different to other types of loss such as bereavement”.

At least in this small sample of 11 women getting over a recent break-up and using MRI technology, “the results suggested that the women who claimed to be suffering the most following their break-ups had the greatest brain changes when thinking about their former relationships”. Their neural pathways had been altered by the trauma of relationship loss.

Such changes evidenced as grief, depression and sadness. Said one woman, “To me, the break-up felt worse than a bereavement. I felt angry, depressed and physically very lethargic. I could not concentrate on anything and would lie on my bed for days on end.”

That’s a female subject. Women’s depression commonly is experienced as sadness and withdrawal.

Depression in men, however, can look quite different. Irritability, hostility, anger, substance abuse are all signals of male depression – and they are clear risks to others. They may even, as above, be lethal.

It’s beyond obvious that we need to assert to male friends and co-workers, to brothers, sons, and cousins, “No matter how bad you feel, do not take anyone else’s life.”

Another factor to make clear is that emotional trauma – for so long the criticized province of women – can affect the brain of anyone at all. Yet it is temporary. It will not last. During that period, we need to protect vulnerable people, especially wives and children, from the man whose brain has been affected. And society needs to make sure he does not attack.

If that means taking away his guns and knives, why not? How much does it cost society to lose a murder victim? How much in lost hours, lost hopes, the therapy for survivors and friends? How much to arrest, try, convict and incarcerate the murderer? Those costs – which ripple out like a stone cast into a pond – are too high for society when by acting, we can prevent them.

It would help, too, when this ten-year-old research is replicated with adult participants who are, this time, male.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Enough Is Enough”

The recent battle over a Canadian high school’s dress code pits a halter dress against a concept: that girls are responsible for the lustful thoughts of boys and men.

The dress code at Harrison Trimble High School in New Brunswick, where 17-year-old Lauren Wiggins is a student, specifies that “shirts” must cover the back and shoulders. By extrapolation, that means dresses (Wiggins’s fell to her ankles) must also employ fabric to cover the wearer’s shoulders and back. Frankly, it’s a reasonable request for health and safety reasons. If something fell on students’ shoulders (hot food in the cafeteria, chemicals in the lab, a bat or ball during physical education class), they would have at least a layer of protection against injury.

Health and safety, however, were not the reasons cited by Trimble High School’s principal, Shane Sturgeon, when he demanded that Wiggins cover her back and shoulders. Instead, he required a change in attire because the halter dress was “sexually distracting” to the male students at her high school.

He said nothing about the potential distraction to lesbian female students. Perhaps he believes they do not exist. Nor did he mention how male students are affected by the sight of bare male shoulder blades and spines. In a game of shirts versus skins, for example.

Shane Sturgeon is a man. He was once a teenage boy. If he makes a strong effort, he might recall that at that age, almost anything was “sexually distracting” to him. The movie he viewed the night before. The girl he would meet in math class, a girl whose body he had never seen but lustfully imagined. His school bus ride over a bumpy road. Anything can set a teenage boy (or a man, for that matter) off on a tangent, because nature cares nothing for individuals or their discomfort. Its focus is on perpetuation of the species.

Calling Wiggins’s dress “sexually distracting” is ridiculous. Sturgeon would be more accurate if he said life is sexually distracting.

This not strictly a North American problem. In the English city of Hull, not far from the North Sea, a male teacher at Bridlington School told a student her uniform skirt was “too short” – for unknown reasons he chose not to summon a female colleague to talk with the girl – and she promptly replied that he should not be looking at her legs. Instead of quoting the dress code, he felt “uncomfortable” and went to the principal with his concerns. (If an apropos comment forces him, “uncomfortable”, to run to authority, perhaps he ought to seek new employment. The rigors of school are not for him.) In response, the principal decided to ban uniform skirts altogether. Parents must now buy trousers for their daughters from the chosen school supplier, who applies a hefty markup over the local store’s price for the same item. Parents are understandably outraged (I expect the mothers recall when they were forbidden to wear “unfeminine” trousers to class) and call the school’s decision “sexist”. Their petition already has 1,100 signatures.

There’s a sinister force at work here, and it creeps close to the idea held in many countries and by fundamentalist religions: that men’s honor is found between the legs of women. What a way to eschew personal responsibility! It underpins the brutality of female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriage, family-directed murders, all the horrors of societies whose culture demands the sacrifice of the safety and health of girls and women.

Similarly, in the eyes of Harrison Trimble High School’s principal, girls are made responsible for boys’ lustful thoughts and erectile virginity.

Look, Mr. Sturgeon. The only person responsible for one’s thoughts and reactions is . . . that person. Including you. If you find Wiggins’s dress distracting, that’s on you. You could bury yourself in your work, turn your thoughts to cauliflower, remind yourself that as an adult you are required to view your charges as students, not potential sex partners.

If you find Wiggins’s dress breaches the dress code rules, then it’s on you to say that. Full stop, end of sentence. You might talk about health and safety, as well.

But blaming her is just not on. Piling onto her slender shoulders the burdens of her classmates’ impure thoughts and the condition of their penises is outrageous. Consider that many of those classmates over-stimulated themselves – and reduced their empathy, thus dehumanizing themselves – by watching porn the night before. Those are pixels on a screen. Not human beings in the room. Yet you want to offload responsibility for students’ erections onto their female classmates?

Get real.

Lauren Wiggins wrote to her principal, saying in part, “If you are truly so concerned that a boy in this school will get distracted by my upper back and shoulders then he needs to be sent to be sent home and practice self control.”

Excellent idea. Followed by an in-depth look at personal responsibility and the risks of online porn to one’s brain development – since the frontal lobes of teenagers are still under construction.

There are excellent reasons to require the covering of students’ shoulders and backs, none of which are related to sexuality. Those reasons should be applied across the board. No more skins in boys’ games.

And no more blaming high school girls’ attire for their classmates’ thoughts and erections.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Outlander’s Epic Fail

“Outlander’s” Jenny Fraser Murray (Laura Donnelly) and Claire Randall Fraser (Caitriona Balfe)

I first read Outlander years ago, so even though the current series takes liberties with plot and characters, I accept those as the price of bringing fiction to a televised (read: larger) audience. It’s all good. Until it goes sour. Ignoring the laws of nature.

Like, if “Outlander” had the sun rising in the west. Nope, against the laws of astronomy (and probably physics). Or if the writers made rain fall up from the ground. Against the laws of physics, specifically gravity.

On this past weekend’s episode, Claire Fraser and her newly delivered sister-in-law Jenny take horse (imagine what that must feel like to the tender, stretched tissues of a woman who’s just given birth) to track the English soldiers who have captured Claire’s Scottish husband. Along the way, Jenny must relieve her milk-engorged breasts to keep up her milk supply and to prevent infection until she can return to her new baby.

To do that, she simply drops her bodice and squeezes the milk out into a cup. The process is called letdown, and happens as a result of hormonal response. (She could even drink her own milk, as this woman did while lost in the wilderness.) It’s a scene straight out of the book. Messy it might be – as almost everything to do with bairns is, Jenny tells Claire – but essential for her own health and for her continued milk supply. As an experienced mother, Jenny knows what she’s doing.

Unfortunately, her body does not. Defying the laws of anatomy and physiology, the pale milk (at least the color is right) squirts out of Jenny’s nipple in a single proud stream.

No. Just no. That’s not how it works. Not with human breasts.

As every breastfeeding woman knows, human nipples have several openings to the active milk ducts. If a nursing child withdraws from the breast, he’ll be spattered with a fine, whitish shower of tiny drops streaming from multiple ducts. If they catch in his hair, they’ll look like sticky-sweet snowflakes.

The milk thus arrives not in a single jet, but in a spray. It’s an effective way to deliver sweet-tasting milk to the tastebuds of a newborn, encouraging her to drink more.

How hard would it have been for the producers of “Outlander” to have researched the matter? Just call a lactation consultant. Ask any woman on the production team who’s nursed her own child. Relay the information to the props department. “Yo, guys, not one stream, but several tiny ones!” A snap.

It’s too bad “Outlander” did not do that. The scene was a moving one, and amusing and practical for women who’ve had to deal with their own excess milk production. Laura Donnelly, who plays Jenny, said in an interview, “I thought that was probably a first on TV. We’re very used to seeing breasts displayed sexually on-screen, and I thought this was an opportunity to show breasts for what they’re really there for, in a completely nonsexual manner, that really turns the tables. It’s an absolute necessity at that point for her, and she doesn’t think twice about it. It’s not something that should be hidden away in any sense, and it’s certainly nothing to be ashamed of.”

Nothing to be ashamed of at all. Except for the way “Outlander” managed the epic fail of mis-portraying the physiology of human breasts.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pro-Rape T-Shirt? Clearly, The Wearer Has Never Been Raped

Clearly delusional. And inexperienced as a potential victim.

All sorts of kudos to the people who outed the nasty perv above on social media. No name yet – a matter of hours, presumably – but a cascade of comments on the cruelty shown by the wearer of the t-shirt have erupted on social media.

Designed after similar others (another famous shirt bears the slogan “Eat Sleep Juventus Repeat” – Juventus is a professional football club/soccer team based in Turin, Italy) in what I hope is a one-off, self-created shirt, the tee took ignorance and spiteful brutality and put them on display at the well-attended Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival in desert California.

It seems hardly necessary to add that – well, taking a wild guess, I’m betting the designer/wearer of this obnoxious shirt has never been raped himself.

Nor should he be. Though others might applaud the educational value of becoming the victim instead of the perp, rape should not be used as a punishment for sex crimes. An eye for an eye has never been more wrong.

Is wearing the shirt a sex crime? As an incitement to sexual assault, sure. There’s also willful negligence and perhaps a sort of group libel.

Just to demonstrate how tough it can be for survivors of sexual assault to take the initiative and report what happened to them, take a look at this English video. Filmed in the Tube, it shows the varying sex assaults common on public transportation (one reason for “women only” train carriages in India and other nations). The filmmaker falls down only in showing the same two people repeatedly. Woman of color, well-dressed white man. The producers should have shown other combinations, since white men are not the only scuzzy Tube-riders.

Then there’s this delightful fellow, an architect who while raping a woman he had met on a blind date, told her that “girls say ‘no’ but they don’t mean it”. Poor women, saying words without realizing their true significance. How kind of him to tell us what we mean. That no means yes, the sky is yellow, and other falsehoods.

When it comes to self-control, then, some men (T-shirt guy, dude on the Tube, deluded architect) are permanently out to lunch. Yet current research indicates that self-control is one of the most essential traits parents can teach their children. Without it, they are at the mercy of emotions. Also, as they age, of error-ridden thoughts like “rape is minor” or “I’m entitled to touch another person without permission” or “people who try to stop me don’t really mean it”.

In all the above offenses there is a distinct lack of good cognitive thought. Of sufficient judgment. Of self-restraint.

Let’s hope the t-shirt wearer is soon found, named and shamed. He cannot learn any younger.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized