I was perusing Beerit, and came upon the question, “What was the first beer you ever had?” My Dad had let me take a few sips of his Molson when I was a kid, but the first beer I got for myself was at a frat party my Freshman year of college, in the fall of 2000 that I had gone to with my four suite-mates.

One of my roommates had gotten a pass to a Frat party, an exclusive one, which meant that they were only letting people in who had invitations. This was good because it meant that we could party in the beautiful fraternity house that they lived in – I went to college in a town that had seen better days economically, and there were plenty of large gorgeous Victorian homes available for ridiculously cheap rent. But an invite only party meant that it would not be too crowded to move around, dance or have a good time. A girl in my Math class would be there, her boyfriend was a pledge. She said it was going to be great.

We talked about the party as we got ready. We decided what taxicab company to take, and agreed to keep an eye on one another. Remember, the other ladies warned me, drink the beer, not the punch. I nodded in agreement. The beer was what the guys drank, it might taste like crap, but it wouldn’t make you immediately drunk (As little as I knew about sex when I was seventeen, I knew less about alcohol.) like that punch. We speculated that the punch was mostly cherry Kool-Aid mix, sugar and vodka. See, girls like pink, sweet, fruity drinks and not manly, bitter beer. If they made it sweet enough and strong enough, we tried to guess the fraternity guys reasoning, women would get too drunk and be more likely to say yes to sex…or, as we darkly reasoned, would be less likely to out up a fight if they were being raped. So, drink the beer so you can be sober enough to decide if you want to hook up or not.

The beer tasted like dishwater. But I danced with my friends and some of the guys who were there, chatted with classmates and people I knew at the party, played some pool. I had a really good time. The music was great. And I didn’t think twice about going to a party where I suspected the hosts were actively trying to rape – if not me, my friends or other women there.

I drank my first beer because I was trying to avoid being date raped.

There is no reason to blame myself for wanting to go out and have a good time with my friends. The college frat party is such a cultural touchstone, who wouldn’t want to see what all the fuss was about? We took reasonable precautions, watched our own and each others drinks, looked out for each other, didn’t drink and drive. But I had walked into that party, where I actively suspected that the men throwing it were attempting to hurt women who attended. Now, they might have all been very nice boys. The fraternity in question didn’t have a reputation for assaulting women. They might have only made the punch as an alternative for people who didn’t want a beverage that tasted like mud. It might have had a reasonable amount of alcohol in it. But that’s not what I was thinking when my friends and I planned to go. I was thinking “these guys probably made this punch to coerce women into sex they don’t want to have” and my reaction wasn’t not to go, it was just not to drink the punch.

Not for a minute did I think to question for a moment my assumption that GHB was everywhere, or think that I should be angry about it. It was just part of the dating landscape, I supposed. I did some research online for this post and found that the drug most commonly related to sexual assault is alcohol. Only about 2 or 3% of women who go to the emergency room after being raped were slipped a drug like GHB or Rohypnol. But my mother had warned me about watching my drink since I was a preteen, and this poster was all over my campus. We were acting rationally given the information we had available. Given the facts, would it have been more reasonable for our parents and school to tell us to stay home and never to drink at all? In the same way that telling people they must only ever be abstinent is not an effective way to teach them about sex, “hide under your bed and never touch a drop of alcohol” isn’t realistic or practical either. It would also put the responsibility to stop rape entirely on women, and imply that those who dared enjoy a drink deserved to be assaulted – with no attention paid to the rapists who are actually perpetrating the violence.

Looking back on that night, I feel nostalgic, yet startled at my naivete. Overwhelmingly I feel warmly about that time of my life and happy that it all worked out so well. Eventually, we moved out of the dorms and into those swank houses ourselves. We came of age and could buy our own drinks. There were raucous parties where we genuinely felt safe – those were the best of all – and we drank beer that actually tasted really good.

I’ve been going to NYSC since February of 2009, and I am generally satisfied. I consider myself to be in favor of a healthy lifestyle which includes lots of exercise. I am not in favor of shaming people about their bodies. So I filled out a customer satisfaction survey and included the following:

Currently, there is an advertisement in the window of the location I visit which says “Thought flu season was scary? Swimsuit season is here.”

I am at a loss for words as to why Town Sports Clubs thought that this was an appropriate advertisement. According to the CDC, since October 2010, 5,991 Americans have been hospitalized due to influenza and 105 children have died.

This is hardly comparable to a little embarrassment due to some love handles or cellulite on the beach.

I would appreciate a response as to the reasoning behind this advertisement. I am otherwise very satisfied with NYSC because I had found it to be a supportive environment to pursue my fitness goals until I saw that poster this week. I also am publishing this inquiry on my blog located at www.politicalflavors.com in hopes of drawing attention to this crass advertisement.

I look forward to their response.

In January, I wrote a letter to Senator Gillibrand, asking her to support Net Neutrality. I received this response, dated April 7, 2011:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Net Neutrality. Your thoughts and concerns are very important and I appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. Please know that as I participate in discussions on the issues before the United States Senate, the thoughts and opinions of all my New York constituents are given careful consideration.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please visit http://gillibrand.senate.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter for updates on this, and other important issues being considered by the Senate.

Sincerely,
Kirsten E, Gillibrand
United States Senator

I really dislike substance-less form letters. I want my representatives to tell me what their position is, even if they disagree with me. I couldn’t find anything else on her position online or on her own website. However, I did find this email to another blogger from February 2010, where the Senator comes out in support of Net Neutrality:

Thank you for writing to me about Net Neutrality legislation in Congress. I share your concerns, and support protecting free and open communication on the Internet.

The Internet plays a vital part in nearly all aspects of our lives as Americans; from commerce to education to entertainment. It is important that people continue to have access to all of these services. The freedom to communicate is a principle that also applies to the Internet. For that reason, I will support efforts in the United States Senate to ensure that users are able to access a broad variety of content and prevent discrimination by network providers.

And so I left am unsure as to whether I was sent a meaningless form letter by mistake, or if the Senator has changed her position. I’ve told her where I stand. Have you?

I heard about an opening night event in NYC for the new movie Bridesmaids sponsored by GLOC (The Gorgeous Ladies of Comedy), so I decided to go with a few of my friends. I had read about the movie a few months ago on Jezebel and was curious to see if it lived up to the hype.

I had very high expectations for this movie, but was not disappointed. It’s about a woman, Annie (Kristen Wiig), who is asked to be the Maid of Honor at her best friends wedding and isn’t quite up to the task. The other bridesmaids have very different personalities and she has a comically messy personal life to boot.

Many times during the movie, the audience was laughing so loudly that I missed portions of the dialogue, and so I will definitley give it at least one more viewing. The story was not just a send up of modern wedding cliches, but also touched on issues of extended adolescence in the current economy and how friendships can grow and change over time. While there was some gross out humor (Salon called it “a triumph for vomit and feminism“) it wasn’t too much for me – and I have very little tolerance for toilet humor and slapstick. There were several surprisingly touching moments as well. One reviewer commented on Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph’s chemistry as best friends and I agree that they seemed very natural together. The interactions of the different personalities and great comic actors contained incredible potential and was not wasted by the filmmakers.

I’ve read criticism’s of Judd Apatow’s work but the only other movies I’ve seen of his was The 40-Year Old Virgin, (He produced Anchorman but didn’t direct it). I think part of what made this movie work so well was Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo’s script. Much of the dialogue – especially where the women characters were concerned – rang truer than other mainstream comedies. We finally get to see some raunchy humor based on a woman’s sexual experiences. It was very silly but quite refreshing!

I am a little wary of people who want the success of this movie to prove that women are funny, because if it had failed, I don’t think it would mean the opposite. However, I welcome with open arms more movies that show women as more than just love interests and with desires more complicated than just getting the guy (or getting the dream job). I like Bridesmaids because it explored women’s friendships, something that is too often mocked and derided – women are catty bitches to each other, dontchaknow? And while none of the characters are perfect friends to each other, they all have an honest desire to connect with other women, which I think a lot of us can identify with. This desire isn’t treated as a source of mockery, although sometimes the women’s terrific failures are set up as something to laugh at, we are also meant feel bad with them, when they are lamenting their loneliness. This is key to the way the movie shows women as people. They’re not just backstabbing bitches or airheads simpering about girl power. The characters, while ridiculous comic caricatures, have genuine feelings.

So, go see this movie, it’s a great popcorn flick that won’t make you turn off your brain or your patriarchy blaming skills.

Last week, I received a response from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to the letter I wrote her regarding Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and several tweets and emails I sent regarding the increasing attacks by Republicans on women’s rights – including HR3 – the so-called “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act” which has since passed the House of Representatives.

As I have written previously, this bill would:
-Tax women who purchased insurance coverage that includes abortion care
–Tax employers who provide such insurance
-Stop Medicaid (health insurance for poor people) from covering abortions for women who have been raped unless it meets the Republicans narrowed criteria of “forcible rape”
-Create “Abortion Audits” for women who had abortions, to determine the cause of the unwanted pregnancy. If the women had not reported the abortion, and if they had been pregnant for reasons other than “forcible rape” she would have to pay a tax
-Allow doctors and hospitals to refuse life saving care to a pregnant women if such care would harm or kill her fetus.

I also contacted her about the vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Although the House voted for it, the Senate voted against it.

Senator Gillibrand affirmed her pro choice position:

I hope I am correct in taking this to mean that she will vote against the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act if there is a Senate vote on it. Where do your representatives stand?

From the news reports and internet hysteria, I had expected to find a bacchanal lasting for days, instead there were just a few joggers and some tourists quietly taking pictures.

Amanda Marcotte has been clear that liberals should not scold people for gloating over  the death of Osama Bin Laden. Neither scolding nor celebrating was my first response to the news – mostly I just felt overwhelming relief. And while there were indeed large outbursts of public rejoicing, they were spontaneous and short lived. I was in Washington DC on a business trip and took a walk past the White House late Monday afternoon – from what I had heard described, I thought there must be something still going on. But there was no sign of the revelry that had taken place just a few hours before. The debate about whether or not to “celebrate” this event feels like manufactured controversy – it detracts from the larger issues of the so-called “War on Terror,” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the loss of Civil Liberties and rise  of security theater here at home.

But the cheering crowds and atmosphere of New Year’s Eve or a home team sports championship for a few short hours on Sunday night and early Monday morning did deeply disturb some people whose opinions I respect.  I personally would rather that  Bin Laden had been killed by US forces than taken alive at the expense of American (or NATO or Pakistani or civilian lives) and so I see no reason to criticize what has been done. However, days later  I’m still reflecting on President Obama’s words,

“[Bin Laden’s] demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.”

I consider myself one of those people  – it’s pretty much straight out of the Unitarian Universalist principles – and I don’t know if I agree. If someone holds those moral values, there will be cognitive dissonance in celebrating the death of any human person. It’s difficult to accept that the beliefs you hold most sacred, may not be as strong as you have professed. The conflict between wanting to shout for joy in the streets after hearing of a military victory, and knowing that one has previously claimed to be a pacifist and to stand for human rights is not easily resolved. Public shaming of those who gave in to the desire to celebrate is an understandable, if not productive response.

When pollution from coal-fired power plants makes its way into our bodies, it endangers out children’s health; At least 1 in 12, and as many as 1 in 6 women in the U.S. has levels of toxic mercury in her body that would put a baby at risk of developmental problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency is stepping up to defend our families whith updated protections to limit pollution in our air and water.

We need to support strong safeguards to clean up mercury from our nations biggest polluters – there’s no excuse for poisoning our air and water and putting our children at risk.

www.sierraclub.org/mercury

I was excited to see the above image in the Sierra Club’s Facebook news feed as a newspaper advertisement they ran last week because it conveys a message that I have been thinking about for a long time. I have been made an argument to conservatives the Republican Party platform contains a glaring contradiction. They are against tighter controls on air pollution, but believe that a fetus has the same (or more) rights than a baby, child, adolescent or adult – especially and adult woman. A developing fetus is more sensitive to toxins than a child or adult, so shouldn’t Republicans want to protect them with the same zeal they use when trying to limit or eliminate abortion? That they do not is maddening.

I’ve gotten a few different responses to my line of reasoning. Some just scratch their heads and say “I’ve never thought of that.” Others tell me I’m being stupid, or delusional and don’t understand my point at all. I’ve heard from some pro-lifers that they, personally are also environmentalists so there is no contradiction. Another told me that an abortion will definitely kill a fetus, but pollution has a less than 100% chance of doing damage so it’s more important to focus on stopping abortion first. Apparently a woman’s desire for an abortion or for a healthy child are meaningless.

But I do want to commend the Sierra Club for attempting to mainstream this argument. It’s an important one for environmentalists to make louder, clearer and more often. Most people don’t realize that as harmful as pollution is, children and fetuses are affected even more adversely because they are smaller and still developing. This issue is a great example of how feminism and environmentalism and feminism intersect. For women who want to be mothers, it is unfair that the chance to have a healthy baby can be taken away by the governments inaction on stopping industries from spewing poisons into the air.

Congressman Gary Ackerman recently sent me this response to my letter:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern regarding corporate influence in political campaigns.

The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission strengthens the power of corporate lobbyists and special interests in the political process. This misguided and overreaching decision grants corporations the same First Amendment rights as American citizens to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office and inhibits the ability of average Americans to have an impact on elections.

As a result of the Citizens United decision, American citizens will be forced to compete with corporations who can spend millions of dollars in support or in opposition to candidates for public office without breaking the bank. As a result of the Court’s decision, oil companies can threaten to spend millions to ensure the defeat of Members of Congress for supporting a clean energy bill, or corporations with foreign interests can spend millions in support of a candidate to secure a favorable trade agreement for another country. At a time when the American public increasingly questions the impact of big donors and lobbyists on the legislative process, our democracy certainly does not need to reverse the progress that has been made with regard to campaign finance reform.

In response to the Court’s decision, I introduced the Corporate Politics Transparency Act. Under my bill, publically-traded companies would be required to notify shareholders of all independent expenditures made either for or against a candidate for public office over the last six years if spending exceeds $10,000 in an election, by disclosing the spending in quarterly statements, annual reports, proxy statements, and registration statements. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that would require corporations to seek approval from a majority of shareholders before spending on politics. I firmly believe that if companies want to spend corporate funds to influence elections, their shareholders have a right to know, approve or disapprove of the spending, and have the opportunity to hold corporate management accountable for how their company is spending their money.

Cappie Pondexter is an amazing basketball player. I cheer for her and Team USA during the Summer Olympics. She always had me on the edge of my seat when the Pheonix Mercury came to town – with Diana Taurasi and Penny Taylor she was part of a triple threat to my beloved New York Liberty. Last year, when she signed to play for the Liberty, I was excited. And she didn’t disappoint – averaging over 21 points per game it seemed at times she was carrying the whole team on her shoulders.

I follow a lot of the players in the league on Twitter. They’re very unfiltered and often interesting to read even when not tweeting about basketball. Pondexter’s tweets frequently mention God. However, I was not looking at my Twitter feed when she tweeted this in the wake of the horrific earthquake and tsunami in Japan:

So I think a lot rt! I knw it’s tragic n God makes no mistakes but what if japan was bout to do some bad things 2 another country?

u just never knw! They did pearl harbor so u can’t expect anything less

And then to a follower who was arguing with her:

r u jap?

There was a controversy on WNBA message boards almost immediately. Most condemning her for using a slur and saying something so ignorant. The media started to pay attention when she made a apologized, it was picked up by ESPN and The New York Times.

I wanna apologize to anyone I may hurt or offended during this tragic time. I didn’t realize that my words could be interpreted in the manner which they were. People that knw me would tell u 1st hand I’m a very spiritual person and believe that everything, even disasters happen 4 a reason and that God will shouldn’t be questioned but this is a very sensitive subject at a very tragic time and I shouldn’t even have given a reason for the choice of words I used.

I think it’s really awful that she would use an anti-Japanese slur, and it seems even worse at this time when so many Japanese people are in danger of losing their lives. Sportswriter Michelle Vopel explained the racism inherent in her comments and the irony of a Rutgers alum saying something so insensitive.

But I want to focus on something else in her tweet that the mainstream media – or at least ESPN, NYT, WNBA, etc seem to be ignoring. It’s what she said about “God makes no mistakes” and her insistence that everything that happens is caused by God, who has a reason, that we might not know or understand.

Why is it that when she says this about a devastating natural disaster that kills thousands of people, there is outrage, but when she (or anyone else) says that God caused something as trivial as the outcome of a basketball game (and she’s not the only one) why do people just nod and accept it without questioning? Because if God influences basketball games, then obviously God must also decide who gets struck with earthquakes.

And Cappie Pondexter herself is not consistent in her own beliefs. Before she issued her apology, she said:

So funny the moment something is taken totally out of context, taking negatively the whole world wanna retweet n talk! Let’s talk bout Taking action n donating money to help! Why we as people focus on the negative? I’m not a negative person by me stating my opinion That will never change! I pray for people countries everyday not just when something tragic happens!

So… the almighty God has decided to kill thousands of people in Japan with an earthquake, tsunami and debilitating nuclear radiation, and our first instinct should be to stay positive, take action, donate money to help and pray for them. That makes no sense. If she really believed that God was trying to torture the people of Japan to death, she would not want to help them. Why should she want to interfere with the will of God? And if it’s a good thing to help them, then why would she believe that God caused the earthquake in the first place.

Taken a step further, why should Pondexter even show up for practice? Won’t God decide who is going to win or lose anyway? How could her efforts possibly matter?

That no one in the media ever points this out is a shocking example of the privilege religious people, especially Christians have in the United States. As a former Catholic and current Unitarian Universalist, I had noticed this, but never to the extent I have the past few days.

This has made me reexamine something I hadn’t give much thought to. Lady Gaga’s current single, “Born This Way” is a celebration of humanity in all of our diverse ethnicities and sexualities. She sings the chorus:

I’m beautiful in my way
’cause god makes no mistakes
I’m on the right track baby
I was born this way

and I love it! It’s the deepest part of my philosophy that I have taken with me from Catholicism to Unitarian Universalism. We are all brothers and sisters. We all have inherent worth and dignity. And there are responsibilities – to God, to each other, to the universe that come with that.

But the same problem occurs. What about sociopaths? Or people with brain tumors that make them pedophiles? Or children born with birth defects so severe that they cannot live more than a few days? Are they mistakes?

When both Gaga and Pondexter assure me that “God makes no mistakes,” I have to wonder – does that mean anything at all?

Last week I went to see “How to Succeed In Business Without Really Trying” at the Al Hirschfeld Theatre in New York City. The new production stars Daniel Radcliffe and John Larroquette.

I was familiar with the play having seen an amateur production a few years ago. It’s about a young man, J. Pierpont Finch, who smirks his way to the top of a corporation using a book with the same name as the show. The songs are catchy and while the play is very dated in terms of gender roles (more on that in a minute) that doesn’t make it worth skipping.

Radcliffe, at 21 is twelve years younger than Matthew Broderick was when he played the same role in a 1995 revival, and comes across as more fresh faced and earnest. He’s pitch perfect (pun intended) and an absolute delight to watch as Finch. Radcliffe’s American accent is spot on, and his comic timing is impeccable.

Advertisements for the play are reminiscent of the aesthetics of “Down With Love“, and I hoped that also meant sending up the sexual politics of the time with a wink and a nudge. It was an accurate impression. The cast was wonderful and I found a lot more humor in the play than I had appreciated before.

The way gender roles are dealt with in this play is in some ways inherent to the script, but different productions can and do make choices about how much of it to play straight and how much to poke fun at and satirize.

Rosemary
The character of Rosemary is Finch’s love interest and sings longingly of how she would be Happy to Keep His Dinner Warm in New Rochelle. The first time I heard this song I was very uncomfortable. I couldn’t decide if the point was that Rosemary’s supreme ambition in life was to be a housewife with no interests outside her husband or if her desires were supposed to represent what all women wanted. Perusing other productions on YouTube, another character interpretation is just that she’s just desperate for male attention. When Rose Hemingway took the stage in the current production and began to sing this song, I felt a palpable discomfort, which ceded to a few stifled giggles. Hemingway’s Rosemary is simply completely infatuated with Finch and might as well been singing about how he’s her “freshly baked love dumpling, fuzzy huggy squeezer and big old pokey bear.” It was really cute, and while faithful to how silly most of the characters in the play are at heart – much less insulting.

Heddy
Heddy La Rue is a more problematic character. She’s stupid (or at least we are meant to laugh at her ignorant gaffes) and has seemingly no sexual ethics. She claims to love Bigley but makes advances on Finch and then marries Womper at the drop of a hat. It’s unclear if she’s a libertine who wants to enjoy as much of her youth and beauty as she can – like say, Clementine Johnson from “Reno 911!” or if it’s her way of accessing power and status, or if she doesn’t really understand what she is doing. The sexy secretary is an old cliche and I don’t think cheesecake (or beefcake) is in and of itself always sexist. But I really feel bad for Heddy as a character – the play dumps a lot of abuse on her and it’s not explained if she understands that almost all of the other characters don’t respect her, either because of the lust or jealousy she invokes in them.

A Secretary Is Not A Toy
This song always makes me squirm. The men of World Wide Wickets are advised not to get involved with their secretaries because they have talents other than being fondled and flirted with, and on top of it you will be fired, with a bunch of silly puns and double entendres to make it rhyme. I’m at a loss as to the original intent of the song, or why it was funny – watching the video from the movie is painfully uncomfortable – and try as I might I can tell it was meant to be humorous but… I’ve got nothin’, and I think that says a lot for how much times have changed. However, I do like what the current production did with the song. I don’t like slapstick humor, at all, but the choreography suggesting the male characters were trying to cover up their arousal (and possibly more) was brilliant and hilarious. In addition, guffaw inducing visual aides were added to the song. In total it was a lot like “Its’ Easy MMMKay” from South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, a spot on parody of how silly it is to say something that shouldn’t have to be said, but somehow must be said.

Paris Original
I’ve loved this song since the first time I heard it in my high school auditorium. It’s pretty much a feminist anthem about the Beauty Myth – no, really. Rosemary is ecstatic that she has found a dress that will make her beautiful enough for Finch to take notice of her. It’s like the fantasy of being thin, only using an article of clothing as the magical talisman rather than a change in weight. If I only had the perfect dress, (or car, or phone, or styling gel) I would be so attractive and and my dream guy (or lady) would fall head over heels for me. And then as quickly as the madness came on, your money is spent, the glow fades and you realize you’ve been had. The party continues on, playing out as it probably would have no matter what you (or anyone else) were wearing.

Cinderella Darling
This song opens Act 2, when Rosemary is considering quitting her job and breaking up with Finch because although he has declared his love and proposed to her, he put a (brief, week long) hold on their romantic relationship to focus on his career. The women in the cast will not stand for this rebellion. They sing to her, begging and pleading not to leave. Not because they care for her and will miss her friendship, or because Finch is a great guy and deserves a second chance, or even because she has a good job and shouldn’t let a personal relationship interfere. They tell her to stay because it’s so rare that a woman can fill the dream of marrying her boss, and if she leaves now, they will all lose hope that their bosses will ever propose to them because her actions would discourage them. Rosemary must stay and live out a fairy tale, because some of them will not get to experience one, except vicariously through her. It’s all so ludicrous I can’t decide to laugh or face|palm, but know this: Cinderella Darling is an excellent illustration of how patriarchy works. When all women are given is crumbs of respect, they will fight over and for them, and shame and ostracize anyone who dares ask for more – because she might cut off their supply of crumbs. This is not an indictment of women. It’s a thoroughly rational response.

In some ways, the drudgery of making a living as a white collar employee hasn’t changed much from How to Succeed through Dilbert and Office Space (which both will one day be just as dated) and that’s one of the reasons people still like this play. It’s actually more relevant now, more people work in those kinds of environments because there are a lot fewer jobs in manufacturing than there were in the 60’s, so more people are in on the jokes. And in spite my criticisms above, it was really cool to see Harry Potter singing about TPS reports.