Remember That Time We All Blew Up Over a Kid's Costume and Got It All Wrong?

For many children, and some adults, Halloween is a time of fantasy and freedom. It’s the one night of the year when anyone can decide to be anything, even if that means pushing beyond the limits of reality. We frequently see children dressed as witches, fairies, serial killers, action heroes, ninjas and pirates, not to mention a whole host of inanimate objects. One of the things that has seemed so magical about Halloween to me is that it is the one night out of the year when the whole country seems to live by “kid rules”. What I mean by “kid rules” is simply this: when you are a child, you are free to be imaginative and open without the burden of an adult understanding of the world. A 6 year old who dresses up as Superman or a princess in the course of imaginative play may have an awareness of the fact that they are not likely to develop the ability to fly or to kiss a frog and get a prince, but they are also not concerned about such things. They are simply enjoying the act of imagining. On Halloween, I’ve always felt that we all get that freedom, regardless of how old we are. I think that, if we polled many adults and asked them if they agreed with this assessment, they would say yes.

Why then, is the world so up in arms over this kid? For those of you who are unaware or don’t feel like looking at the link, a mom in Lee’s Summit, MO has written in her blog about her 5 year old son’s decision to dress as Daphne from Scooby Doo this Halloween, and the reaction to his costume from some of the other mothers at his preschool. According to the mom, whose name is Sarah, some of the other mothers were pretty disdainful toward her for allowing her son to dress like a female character. One even seemed to indicate that Sarah should have forbidden the costume in order to make sure that her son understood that he is not a girl. In short, these moms were acting like total dicks, but may be not in the way we think they were.

Many people have reacted to Sarah’s blog with a hearty “who cares if your son is gay?”

Others have reacted with the standard “OMG! You’re crazy. He’s going to now catch the gay!”

And now, we have on our hands the standard issue “Is it ok to be gay” debate, which leads to the even more annoying, ‘is it ok to encourage your kid to be gay” debate.

Neither of these debates are new, and neither of them are wrong, per say. However, neither of them should even apply here. While I think it is always a good idea to discuss issues of tolerance for those with different sexual orientations from our own and for those with different senses of identity from our own, I think it’s total bullshit that we are discussing this boy’s sexuality based on his Halloween costume. Furthermore, I think that, by doing this, we are ignoring several larger issues and actually continuing to damage the way our society approaches the gay and transgendered communities.

I know it may seem odd to say that people speaking out on behalf of a little boy’s seemingly homosexual tendencies is damaging to the gay and transgendered communities, but bear with me here. First of all, a five year old child’s desire to be a female cartoon character does not indicate that he will always and forever want to dress like a fem. Think about all the things that you played at as a child. If you can tell me honestly that you’ve grown up to be all these things, then I will grant you a pass on this one. You’re probably too busy being a firefighter/superhero/frog/teacher/astronaut to worry about the internet anyway. Since most of you are not in that category though, allow me to let you all in on a little secret: imaginative play does not always indicate anything other than imagination.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s focus on the bigger issue here. Not all transgendered people are gay. Many individuals who are transgendered are straight. This may seem like a bit of a statement of the obvious, but the fact that a little boy’s costume has caused so many people to come forward to discuss his potential homosexuality indicates that we are in drastic need of a whole lot more understanding here. So, let’s disregard the fact that his costume choice does not necessarily dictate that he is or will be transsexual or transgendered, and talk about the fact that gender identity and sexuality are not the same thing and when we view them as the same, we are damaging everyone by giving in to the same kind of limited and limiting thinking which has relegated both communities to the fringes of society for a very long time.

You see, the thing is that gender issues are not about sex. They are about identity. Identity, as anyone but the most vapid among us can demonstrate, is an extremely complex thing and sexuality is only one small part of that. When we view cross dressing as an indication of someone’s sexual preference, we are limiting that person and refusing to gain a real understanding of who they are. Likewise, when we view someone’s sexuality as the sole factor in their identity, we are limiting them without understanding them. Even if the intention behind it is to be helpful or supportive, which is certainly the case with most of the commenters on Sarah’s blog, the message is still a little bit wonky. What we are saying when we do this is that gay and transgendered people are different enough from what is normal to be placed into a flat two dimensional category which is relegated to the side and that one defining aspect is good enough for them.

It’s bad enough that we allow gender norms to dictate what is considered normal in our most superficial pursuits, but when we allow them to define an extremely diverse group of people as “others”, we are allowing them to dictate entire personalities. I wonder how any straight person who does not break gender norms in any way would feel if they were solely defined by one small factor of their personal identity. Let’s say, for instance, that Joe Blow is a straight male who likes to wear t-shirts. It would be wholly ridiculous if we looked at Joe over there and said “The fact that Joe wears T-shirts is the most important thing about him and dictates a variety of unrelated facts, therefore, when considering Joe, we need only consider his T-shirt.” Why then, do we do this to people who break gender norms? Are they suddenly not as complex and interesting as the rest of us? Or is it because somewhere, deep inside ourselves, we are terrified that we are not complex enough so we limit others as a defense? I suspect it is the latter, and that this mentality is exactly what is leading an entire country full of adults to go batshit insane over a 5 year old’s Halloween costume.

-Shannon

Olivia Munn's T & A Problem. Or How Feminist Bloggers and Commenters Have Shown Me That My Entire Personality Is A Sham.

I have a confession to make. I have been living a lie. Well, at least, I now know I have been living a lie. Thanks to the writers and commenters at Jezebel and other feminist sites, I am now aware of the fact that my previous self understanding was wrong and that I am not as dynamic as I once thought I was.
You see, until feminist blog Jezebel skewered The Daily Show over their choice of Olivia Munn as the next female correspondent, and the so called blogosphere lit up like a christmas tree, I thought that it was entirely possible for me to be sexy, funny, geeky and smart all at the same time.

For those of you who are unaware, The Daily Show has been hosting a search for their next female correspondent. In their search, they hired former Attack of The Show host and Playboy and Maxim cover girl Olivia Munn. This choice led Jezebel columnist Irin Carmon to publish an article titled “The Daily Show's Woman Problem”, in which she lambasted the show for hiring too few woman and interviewed former female employees of the show who indicated that host John Stewart is sexist and given to fits of rage. In response, the women who work for the show published an open letter proclaiming that Stewart is not, as he joked in reaction to the article “a sexist prick”, but a fair and decent boss. Fair enough, right?

Apparently not. Once the reaction to the initial article was published on the site, commenters quickly popped up to explain that the real problem is not that the Daily Show may be sexist in their hiring practices, but that Munn herself could not possibly be a good fit for a smartly funny TV show. The reason? Because she is sexy, and flaunts it. Munn's sex appeal, and her willingness to play it up on the covers of Maxim and Playboy as well as in her role on Attack of The Show, evidently, indicate that she is incapable of delivering smart and satirical comedy on late nite TV. She is especially not capable of doing so in a setting that is geared toward political and social satire and any claim she makes toward her own abilities, her own geekiness or her own sense of humor are lies which are in place to cover up the fact that she is nothing but boy bait.

Leaving aside the fact that this sort of characterization of a successful woman is totally counter to what I understood feminism to be after, this revelation, that being sexy means one cannot be anything but sexy, puts me in quite a personal bind. As I stated above, I was previously given to thinking of myself as being sexy, smart, geeky and funny. I obviously can't be all four, if you believe those feminist bloggers, so lets look at each one in turn and see how they all don't work together.

Sexy- I need to first say that I am in no way attempting to indicate that I am as sexy as Munn. No one from Playboy is banging down my door to get me in a bikini by any stretch of the imagination. However, in the real world, I am often told that I am sexy, and I often play that up as much as possible. I have never jumped into a cream pie in a maid outfit, but I have worn a pinup costume and reveled in the attention it brought. I have never eaten a hotdog on a string on live television, but I have been given to amusing myself and others with fellatio jokes. I think it is hilarious when my boobs jiggle and someone points them out, and I love to wiggle my ass. I do this because, frankly, it feels good to get attention. What I was previously unaware of is the fact that enjoying this attention means that any other attention I get is just bullshit. Fortunately, in explaining how Munn's physical assets cancel out her other ones, the sweet darlings of the feminist blog world have also shown me how they cancel out mine.

Sexy VS Smart- Prior to being enlightened, I assumed that, somewhere in her audition process, Munn would have had to read a Daily Show script in a manner that showed her intellectual prowess. Apparently, not so. To those who are attacking her, it is blindingly obvious that Munn's achievement (and becoming the second ever female correspondent is an achievement!) was delivered to her on a silver platter by a group of sex hungry men who wanted to inject some eye candy into their lives. It could not possibly be because she showed some proficiency or intelligence in an interview or audition. This makes me wonder if my high GPA, delivered by mostly male professors, was earned by wearing low cut blouses and very high heals. Well, if you follow the hidden logic of Jezebel et al, it obviously was. It's a shame that no one clued me in, because I would have spent a lot less nights in front of my computer screen working though papers and a lot more planning outfits. Not to worry though, this lesson has been learned. I don't need to be smart, because I am sexy.

Sexy VS Geeky- This is my favorite of the issues. You see, Munn often talks up her own geekiness, especially in the context of her prior G4 network show. This is unsurprising, since G4 is a video game themed channel and, I assume is watched by a lot of geeks. Munn also does things like attend comic conventions in costume. This seems pretty geeky to me. But wait! She attended one in a Princess Leia “slave costume”. You know, the infamous gold bikini from Return of The Jedi? Well, evidently, this costume is sexy. Too sexy for a geek. I suppose that, if Munn had gone in a long robe and was still dressed as Leia, she might not be called out on the carpet as a fake geek, but I can't be sure. As it stands, she was obviously just there, to paraphrase one commenter, to taunt the geeks, who must be sex starved, with her sexiness. Now, aside from the fact that I own a gold bikini, which I purchased because it reminded me of ROTJ, I have also done things like spend weeks researching and sewing a Poison Ivy costume. Why did I choose Ivy? Because she is the sexiest of the Batman villains and I wanted to look hot at a Halloween party. The fact that I chose this particular costume, and made it as boobilicious as possible, obviously cancels out any actual geekiness I might have. The comic collection? The sci-fi addiction? The gaming? They're all, on the feminist line, obviously just there to lure sex starved boy geeks into paying attention to me. So, if we, once again, follow the logic here, I should sell the comics and not bother with the movies, books or games anymore because I couldn't possibly have come to my own appreciation of them. Check. (Also, as a side note to any boy geeks who might be reading this, I am very sorry to inform you that you must be horribly open to manipulation by sexy women because you can't get one yourself.)

Sexy VS Funny- After the hubbub started, some well meaning yet clearly misinformed, and probably male, commenters came to Munn's defense by saying “oh hey, you know she might actually be really funny if she's given the chance.” Obviously, this is impossible. You see, Munn thinks boobs and farts are funny. She also thinks it's funny to jump into a giant cream pie. This splits into two issues for the aforementioned bloggers. On the one hand, Munn probably doesn't even really think this is funny. She probably just says that because she knows that men, who can never progress past 3rd grade in the humor department, like it. On the other, if Munn does think these things are funny, then it indicates that she cannot possibly grasp a more complex humor. This dichotomy confuses me as I imagine it would be quite fun to jump into a giant pie, and I love a good boob gag as much as the next guy. However, I also used to think I was pretty witty with the satire. I even once read Parker, and understood her, or so I thought. In fact, my 80 year old grandmother is often yelling at me for being funny, because boys don't like it. I never realized that she might be halfway right before, but now I see the light. I can not be funny if I am sexy, because “sexy” humor is sophomoric and silly, and that means that I can not grasp anything more complex. Lesson learned. Goodbye Parker, hello Peter Griffin.

So, readers, given what I have learned from all this controversy, I suppose I now have a choice to make. I must choose between sexy and everything else. Well, if Jezebel et al are correct, then being sexy means I really don't need to bother with anything else. Obviously, choosing sexy is the right thing to do. I mean, why would I want to put myself in position where I actually had to try? I suppose that if I wanted to hold on to my other assets, I could accept a demotion down to merely “cute”, as some commenters have posited is the case with the other Daily Show correspondent Sam Bee and other funny women such as Tina Fey, but why would I want to do that when being sexy makes things so much easier for me? In this case, I am opting for sexy. My life will be much more simple from here on out!

But wait! Won't that be boring? What is there was another way? What if Munn is funny and Fey and Bee are sexy? I know it may seem like a stretch, but maybe we can just pretend, for a while, that we live in a slightly evolved culture where a woman can have more than one asset. Say, one where women once fought for the right to be seen as something more than just one thing. If only such a reality existed, what a fun world it would be.


You can watch Munn's first solo correspondent clip here: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-8-2010/arizona-s-photo-radar.

-Shannon (Who Shakes It Like Polaroid Picture)

Where Did All The Real Men Go? They Turned Into Women.

When I was younger, I used to listen to the older man discuss women.
To hear these men speak, you'd think that women were evil creatures
who existed only to drain you of your funds, withhold sex, and bitch
at you for enjoying anything involving a team of some kind, be it
Delta Force or the Eagles. Women were delicate swans who liked shiny
things and men were savage beasts who drank whiskey and ate raw meat
right off the bone of a creature they hunted themselves with their
bare hands. Thinking back, I have no idea who these men were. They
were probably stand-up comedians I saw on TV. The point is, men were
bad ass and physical, while women were soft and emotional.

Cut to my Facebook page in 2010. One male "friend" frequently posts
about how he just can't wait to curl up next to his girlfriend and
another one talks about a girl playing with his heart. Compare and
contrast with the women. One girl talks about whiskey and farting. A
few days ago, another girl posted about her boyfriend broke up with
her and the time is right to party. A rather large portion of my
female friends are constantly prattling on about sports. Pardon my
french, but what the fuck is this bullshit? This was not the world
late night comedians prepared me for! This some crazy bizarro world
where women open bottles with their teeth and men know damned well
that they have to have dinner on the table by 5, not 5:15.

I know what you're thinking. "Mike, you're sexist and I hate you." But
you're wrong! You don't really hate me. Not yet. This isn't about
"traditional gender roles," or any of that silly crap. This about
something even more terrifying than women voting or making decisions:
WE ACTUALLY LISTENED TO EACH OTHER! If you think back to your
formative years, you might remember men discussing women in the same
way I do. The consensus was that men wanted women that acted like
them. As a result, little girls began to act like men as they grew
older. They took an interest in sports and drinking and fighting. My
generation of males came of age in the time of Dawson's Creek. Now I
know that you're finding it hard to fathom that such an insignificant
part of the nineties played such a large part in guy-liner and the
wimpiness of today's male, but remember that I was 13 and Dawson's
Creek was the hottest thing going for the tween girls. It was the
first show I remember that showed males crying over girls. Now
McDreamy cries every week. And all the girls wanted a guy like Dawson.
Here's a guy who shared his bed with a girl he wasn't going to have
sex with, and we were all expected to act like him. Thanks a lot,
Kevin Williamson.

Now look at us. A generation of hard-drinkin', tough talkin' chicks,
and a bunch of overly sensitive, teary-eyed men. What does this mean
for my generation? Nothing really. It's just something interesting to
think about. Our gender roles completely flipped and nobody seems to
really notice. What happens here on out? Do women get tired of
candy-ass men? Do men get tired of women who drink them under the
table? Will there be a helpline for abused men? Will men get together
once a week to drink wine and gossip under the guise of a book club? I
hope so. I love gossiping about that fat cow, Joe, who lives across
the street. You know I heard he slept with two women last month. You
believe that? What a whore.

-Mike