Unfunderwear

These are images from the Victoria's Secret 2017 fashion show in Shanghai. Every year they do this, and women even get excited about it. It's supposedly fun, and daring, and sexy! I just find the whole thing ridiculous. Like I get that those models are acting like they're having fun, but the whole thing is dumb. You can't even buy the things in stores that they show, so what's the real point? Because it isn't "fun."

I'm jaded though. For four excruciatingly long months when I was 20, I co-managed a Victoria's Secret store. It was 40+ hours of me hating life a week. By far, the worst job I have ever held... and as a teenager, I once did telemarketing for Kirby vacuum salesmen, for a cult like franchise outside of Phoenix. They made all of their employees sing songs, clap, and pay a quarter any time we said anything negative at all, including "it's cold in here." It was weird, but still better than working at Victoria's Secret.

First off, it was gross. People have no pride when it comes to their consumerism. The returns were the worst. There were men who returned used lingerie they'd bought as gifts, one in particular who did it consistently, and one woman who scarred me for life by returning a teddy with a big poop streak in it. In addition, couples who want to have sex in public places seem to think that Victoria's Secret is the place to be, which, as you can imagine, is awkward.

But more than gross, it was tedious, not fun work. So many panties. So much inventory. Loss prevention was a nightmare. And all the goddamn perfume and lotion. I'm still touchy about perfumes thanks to working there. If I get a whiff of VS's Love Spell, I nearly vomit. I hated everything about that job. I had taken it only because I was new to the area and really needed the income. I couldn't be picky, so I sucked it up and sorted and straightened a bazillion million trillion panties, until another store decided to open across the mall walkway from us and scouted me. I gladly put my two weeks in at Victoria's Secret about 20 seconds later.

It was just a sad place to work. Aside from the kinky couples, it seemed like no one enjoyed being there, customers and employees alike. I know that now in the new store designs, dressing room lighting comes out of the sides of full length mirrors, instead of overhead. This makes a huge favorable difference in how you appear. Any time light comes at you from the sides and not overhead, you're going to look much better, anyone is. But back when I worked there, 16 or so years ago, the lighting made you look dimpled and harsh, and the short mirrors made you look wider. It doesn't help that their products almost always run small. Picture a woman, feeling awkward at trying to find lingerie for her anniversary as it is, and she puts it on in a size too small in less than optimal conditions. She isn't having fun, or feeling sexy.

There was nothing fun or sexy about selling underwear, either. I was directed to instruct customers that by paying over twice as much as a "regular" store for their underwear, they were treating themselves, and they would feel so much better and stand so much taller because of it. In truth, the sizing ran ridiculously small and their cuts weren't considerate. But because they sold their brand as the key to sexy, it still sold, so they didn't care. Even with the 40% discount, I didn't buy my own underwear there. It's not like anyone ever even knew. I didn't mope around the store all day slouching because I bought my underwear at Kohl's. When I think about my experiences working there, vs. the shows and ads, it's just such a huge contrast. It was the least glamorous job of my entire life.

Recently, my husband told me that during a work trip to another country, he had gotten into a cab and was immediately handed a laminated menu of women in their fancy underwear with their faces blurred out. Their ages, heights, and weights were all listed to the side of them. The cabbie told him the women were looking for fun and asked him if he was too. I try not to be a jealous person, but like anytime prostitution is rampant in his trip destinations for work and he tells me about it, my initial gut reaction is to want to think badly of the women. That want to throw insults at them. Then I have to remind myself of the why and how's of how these women end up there, posing in their underwear, advertising themselves for consumption. You have to remember, they aren't having fun, either.

So yeah, in my opinion, women aren't really ever having oodles of fun thanks to fancy underwear. I think it's safe to say that Victoria's secret is that she's full of crap.

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend

This is probably my favorite show. The main character is Rebecca Bunch, who is likable but has some serious issues. The writing is very tongue in cheek, and it's a comedy first and foremost, so it has some obvious plot holes and such - but it is very endearing. Every season so far has surprised me with the writing. It is kind of genius because the show often aims to point out things that women should be talking about, but it does it in a self-deprecating way by using Rebecca, who again is a hot mess, so it doesn't seem so preachy. It also works in things that aren't usually discussed within entertainment regarding women, which I think is really fun. It's always surprising.

I think this all well exemplified in some of the songs they choreograph and sing on the show, so I'm going to embed a few to check out. I usually hate any kind of singing in my television viewing experiences, like hate it unless it's Disney hate it, but the songs on this show crack me up. They're a great example of the feel of the episodes.

"The Sexy Getting Ready Song" - a song about how unsexy getting ready is. I love the rapper's outrage.

"Research Me Obsessively" - A song about researching your ex's new love. When you think about it, although usually harmless, this is pretty unhealthy. It's all comparison and envy.

"Put Yourself First" - In this episode, Rebecca volunteered as a camp counselor, offering to teach underprivileged teenage girls about female empowerment. She's not exactly the best person to be teaching this, especially because she only volunteered because the guy she likes did. After a disastrous day trying to impress him, the girls of the camp give Rebecca a makeover, "for her."

"JAP Battle" - a rap battle with her life long frenemy. 

"I Give Good Parent" - About impressing a love interest's parents. Love hearing it from a female take for once!

"Heinous bitch" - a song about hating your mother. Good girls aren't supposed to hate their mothers, so I enjoyed this. Rebecca's mother is the worst.

And last, "Let's Generalize About Men."

At any rate, may be worth checking out! This season is really focusing on mental health. Last week, Rebecca tried to kill herself, so it's getting pretty heavy. It will be interesting to see how it plays out!

Eye lash out

I like to think that I am not as consumerist as I am. As our readings have pointed out, we use relative position monitoring to keep track of where we fall in things. I always think that compared to other people like me, I spend less on "stuff," in favor of doing other things with the money. But when I really make myself think about it, I can see that I'm really not much different. With me, you just to have to appeal to my lazy side. If you want me to buy your stuff, make me think you are going to save me time or effort.

A few weeks ago, I bought a pair of magnetic eyelashes from a Facebook ad. Yes, I paid $20 for magnetic eyelashes. I watched a little video about how easy and wonderful they were and bam, sold. I was excited, I'm not even going to try and lie. I thought these were going to be amazing, I would clip my little lashes on and never deal with mascara again.

What I got in the mail, again, for $20, were like really bad doll eyelashes. Ask me in class, I'll show you a picture. They were so long, I tried cutting them with scissors, but they were still really long after. Even when I could get the magnets to connect, the lashes didn't line up top and bottom right and I had these still way too long bad doll eyelashes on. So I posted photos of it for my friends, because it was hilarious, and then threw them away. 

This video breaks down the logistics of these stupid eyelashes. Please note: I think the ones in this video are much better than the ones I got in the mail.

Still, just a completely ridiculous purchase.

Another thing I have purchased in the name of convenience, that I also found just ridiculous, was Blue Apron. Incase you don't know, it's a service that sends you a box full of ingredients, on dry ice, along with very, very detailed and annoying instructions, so that you can make dinner. It's supposed to take the stress out of meal planning and inspire you to want to cook, or something. And maybe for some people it does! It did not me. After a friend "gifted me" a trial, I let them keep sending me boxes (I was paying for) a few times on their lowest plan. I cancelled it not long after, for a few reasons.

1. You had to prep every little thing and it STILL created massive waste. Like they would seriously just put pieces of produce, like say a potato, in a bag, and then put that into a box, and then put that in a bigger box full of tons of other small boxes and bags. Everything was packaged like three times over. I felt like I was unpacking food capsules sent from Earth, like Matt Damon in that Mars movie, and then having to chop, mince, or zest every thing in them.

The recipes were all way too involved for me. I hated it. But I kept forgetting to cancel my subscription before the cut off date for the next box, and wouldn't waste the food. After I finally did cancel, I swore that I would never zest anything else, ever again, for as long as I live. Who zests an orange for their dinner on a Wednesday night? Not me.

2. Everyone in my family hated it. I went into it thinking I would be treating them to fun new meals, since clearly I am no culinary enthusiast, but no. My husband called on his way home from work one day, hungry and sitting in traffic, and said, "please tell me we aren't having Blue Apron for dinner." We were, so that night, I made Jimmy John's instead. I remembered to cancel very soon after that.

Anyway my point is just that I am an American consumption junkie just like anyone else, I just prefer that my consumption be tied to making life easier for me to be lazy.

It's easy to not seem like a big deal, and say yeah it was dumb to pay $20 for magnetic doll eyelashes, haha, but oh well. But I am seeing that it's so American consumerist to think that way. For instance, I have a monthly reoccurring donation to Doctors Without Borders, for $25. Same price as my eyelashes, with shipping. That means those stupid eyelashes I threw away were in a price range between a month of clean drinking water for 40 people and a surgical kit for doctors in the field. When you look at it that way, it makes you feel pretty spoiled.

To close out, I think that women like me are more susceptible to these ads because, as the text has been explaining, the social norms are that we are supposed to be able to do it all - work hard, be pleasant, domestic, and still not eat carbs at dinner - and we are looking for shortcuts. It's just funny, I cannot ever imagine my husband ordering a magnetic face beard, let alone zest an orange, let alone feel bad enough about his appearance or care enough about meal preparation to even try. 

Guilty Fandom

So, I am a big Eminem fan. It can be embarrassing to admit. And the more aware I become of gender issues, the harder it gets to justify this liking of Eminem. Regardless, I know that I'm still going to listen to him, because it's just something that I probably won't give up.

It's embarrassing because he speaks/raps/acts so horribly about women. I kept thinking of him when we read the "Bitches and Hoes" section of our text, because he is no doubt a pusher of that narrative. In our text, it states that often rappers justify the "bitches and hoes" stuff by saying it isn't all females, just the bad ones, yet they don't talk about any other kind of females. With Eminem, I'm hard pressed to even think of a time when he has talked favorably about any female other than his daughter. And even though he's progressed some on his homophobia, he definitely hasn't been any model citizen for acceptance.  When I listen to those parts of his music, it does make me cringe, and there are certain songs I won't even listen to. It's in no way a romanticized fan thing. I realize that he has issues.

But at the same time, I have been listening to him for almost twenty years, since I was a teenager in southeast Michigan, where he is a huge deal. He is like embedded in me at this point. Also, I can relate to him, and in some ways that are awkward to bring up and hard to find other people to relate with. I think that because of that, I sometimes make excuses for or just cringe at his overtly sexist ridiculousness.

I think many people have celebrities they enjoy, or artists who speak to them, that they don't always agree with. For instance, not long ago, I read an Instagram post that stated John Lennon was a domestic abuser. Initially, I thought there was no way this could be true! So I googled around, and yup, it looks like it is. Which is just crazy to me! Like, this is the "Imagine" guy! No one ever talks about this side of him.

In a more recent example, I keep seeing ads for Daddy's Home 2. It stars Mel Gibson, who has been known to go on anti-Jewish rants. In addition, he is also known for being verbally abusive toward women.

Yet despite his severity, he's popular enough that he is now being accepted back in Hollywood, and in what is supposed to be a mainstream family Christmas movie.

If fans (such as myself) are unwilling to give up certain celebrities for social issues which we would usually support, are we hypocrites? I will admit that yeah, I think so. But at the same time, if I'm being honest, I'm probably still always going to listen to Eminem, or at least want to. It does make me wonder, is there anything else can we do to influence mass media and its stars other than boycott? And if not, should people like me get better about giving up our fandom for the sake of the message? 

Liar, liar, dress on fire

The above video explains some of the interview tactics of Kellyanne Conway. I wanted to share it because I think this is good stuff to keep in mind when we watch people like she and Huckabee-Sanders speak.

What brought this on? I read this Atlantic article on Megyn Kelly, which details how she shapeshifted her personality and her views to be less confrontational and Conservative when she decided she wanted to become more mainstream. After years molding the Fox audience into what they are today, she thinks she can just wash her hands of it. I just find it hard to believe that any of these women actually stand for anything. The left, especially left leaning women, were chastised by some after the election for not being excited that Kellyanne Conway was the first successful female presidential campaign manager - but why would anyone be excited about this kind of person having more power and influence on our culture? 

It is often stated as fact that Hillary Clinton was a liar. Some agreed, some justified, some disagreed, but regardless we all knew that Hillary actually stood for certain things and would fight for them. For instance, that she believed in universal healthcare, improving education, and in women's rights. When General Kelly decided to give up a little respect this week by calling a female congresswoman an "empty barrel" during what has been shown to be a rather untruthful speech itself... he should have been looking no further than most of the people standing at that podium these days.

I'm all for female empowerment, and it is good to see more females visible regardless, but I'm also all for people who act like humans who have an obligation to other human beings in at least some way, shape, or form. I just feel like it is important to note that these women may have been peppered into our lives under some guise of female empowerment, but it's likely the only real reason they are here is because they have no real scruples.

It's About Weinstein Time

It was kind of hard to ignore the Harvey Weinstein stuff in the media this week, but incase you missed it, the New York Times broke this story. It was quickly followed by this piece in the New Yorker, which I think is even more damning. In them, it is reported that Mr. Weinstein has been sexually harassing and/or assaulting women for thirty-some years, and using manipulation, money, and power to get by with it.

After the New Yorker piece, his wife of a decade left him. This seems to be the only thing that has genuinely caused remorse in him, if you ask me. Every statement he has made, he has seemed to me to want to breeze things over and not take his actions as seriously as he should.

Then, yesterday, I saw this, where Weinstein says that "we all mistakes" and that he wants a second chance - this before he even goes through with getting help. It really irritated me. He doesn't get to deem, on his own, what is a simple mistake and what is a sick behavioral pattern or mental issue, and he sure as hell shouldn't be talking about his second chance before he even makes up for screwing up the first one.

At any rate, regardless of Mr. Weinstein's apparent lack of a moral compass, I have to say that this story has shown me the progression in how sexually based offenses are handled in the media. In my lifetime, it has moved leaps and bounds. When I was a kid in the early 90's, Mike Tyson was convicted of date raping a young beauty contestant and served three years in prison for it. This article details the timeline of events, and it is long, but pay special attention to what one of the jurors, David Vahle, says in the section labeled "The Decision":

"Right after the case was over, maybe a week, I was not comfortable with the verdict. Whether she wanted it or not, I don’t know. She was enthralled by Tyson. Like any person with a celebrity, she wanted to get to know him, go out with him. Why would any girl go up to a man’s room at 3 in the morning, or whatever time it was, without knowledge that something could happen?"

Mind you, this from a man who just voted him guilty. I'm going to guess that post trial, like my parents and many others I heard spew nearly verbatim this same line of thinking, he had been listening to opinions in the media. I can remember these things frequently being said about the victim, such as that she must have wanted it, going up to his room and all. As if there is ever a time a person has no right to autonomy and control over their own being?

It can be argued that the case was light on physical evidence, but to suggest fault on the victim's part because "she should have known something could happen" is ridiculous. By that line of thinking, a woman deserves to be raped for walking in a parking garage alone, late at night, because she knew it was a risky act. You should have a right to your own body regardless of location or situation, always. As far as I can find, the victim never went after Tyson's money. Why on earth would someone whose character had never been questioned prior to the incident suddenly want to destroy Tyson? It doesn't even make sense, yet people insisted she was at fault.

In less than thirty years, we went from that to today's coverage of Harvey Weinstein, which I think says a lot. With him, the acts are (now) being taken seriously and women are being heard, and more importantly, believed. I don't think Weinstein expected to be nailed this hard because he was still countering in standards and expectations of thirty years ago, but I don't think that's any excuse either. I'm thoroughly enjoying the media nailing him.

I really think the turning point in how these things were reported was the Steubenville assault. The media had progressed some by then, but still, as noted here, there was so much sympathy for the convicted in that case that it was stomach turning. It was as if because the victim was drunk and hadn't been known to be penetrated by a penis, the media actually felt bad for the perpetrators, even though they still violated her body!

I think that conviction meant the world in a lot of women's eyes, and I think the scrutiny the media came under for feeling sorry for the perpetrators did too. As Brock Turner's victim would later so eloquently relay, regardless of what she did, she did not deserve to be assaulted, or for it to be treated as a non-grave offense. I feel like a shift started with Steubenville, and is continuing to move forward as alleged sexual predators are outed, and I love it.

The Man in the Satin Pajamas

So, just incase you live in outer space and didn't know, Hugh Hefner is dead. He died of natural causes on September 27, at the age of 91. I would like to add that I did try not to be "the annoying SJW" about it, even sharing a meme about how no one would say he was in a better place. I'm cringing at myself now thinking about it in the context of our class, though.

So then why did I share it? Because I'm awful and it did make me laugh, I won't lie, but also probably because sometimes it gets tiring being "that person." I'm always the one being all, "so, hey guys, I read (insert book or article) and I think this is (insert critique or opinion)," while my friends and family smile politely and think, "will you please just shut up, why can't you just watch DWTS like a normal person?" That's how I feel, anyway. So I guess you could say that I shared it in interest of keeping things light, even if I'm no Hef fan.

At any rate, when it came time to write, I felt guilty about sharing it, given what the class is about and the fact that news of his death is everywhere in the media and most of the coverage is pretty favorable. Additionally, just as I began rooting around for what to write about, I came across this article, which I thought was a pretty good read. In it, the author recalls a lot of things that we probably should remember regarding Mr. Hefner and his legacy, such as some vulgar stuff about how he would sometimes treat women, as well as that his message was way more about freeing men from the grips of monogamous female lovers than it ever was female empowerment and the overall (read: beneficial for both sexes) sexual revolution. Indeed, while I haven't read Holly Madison's book detailing what went on "in the bedroom" at the Playboy mansion, a close friend who did relayed it to me. From what I was told, there was pretty much zero focus on female pleasure or entertainment. 

I think it is worth adding that I saw Holly Madison in person once, a couple of years ago. I lived outside of Los Angeles at the time, and my youngest child and I held season passes to Disneyland. We would go whenever she had a weekday off of school (and sometimes when she didn't). On the day we saw Ms. Madison, it was a slow weekday, and we were waiting at the end of an exit line to leave a ride - my daughter had left her Mickey ears in the pouch in front of her seat and we were waiting for them to be fetched. A small group walked past us, with a Disney employee, to enter the ride line through the exit. Another Disney guest, upon seeing the group, asked for a photo. Still standing there waiting after their picture was over, I asked the other guest who it was she had asked for a photo. "Holly Madison!" she said to me, wide eyed, as if it was insane I didn't already know.

Later on, when I told friends, I got some of the same reaction: how could you not see it? And the honest truth was, there was not a thing remarkable about her to me, famous or not. First of all, I didn't have cable and didn't watch anything she was in. I basically only knew who she was because of gossip magazines in checkout lines, and from  Perez Hilton. Additionally, I lived near LA, and I saw women who looked like her a lot. There were even moms at my kid's school who looked like her. Basically, I had seen so many others who had over-processed blonde hair, big sunglasses, and surgically enhanced bodies that there wasn't anything discernable about her. It did make me think: how much of an individual can you be when the major goal is to be the diamond of conformity? Sure, he never "made" any of these women conform, but he was an undeniably huge catalyst in the hyper-sexualizing of women, as well as the ever escalating physical standards they are supposed to aspire to in order to feel worthy.

So, as sad as it when someone passes away, when we read all of these things in the media about what good ol' Hef did for sexual liberation, civil rights, and the like, we should probably also remember that he most certainly never aimed to conform himself to anything, or do anything for women that didn't mainly benefit himself. That he may have been a stepping stone is some ways, when you look at him through a certain light, but in most others, he was the same old, same old, patriarchal figure. In short, RIP Hef, but despite the current media glorifications, let's try to remember that history is probably where he belongs. 

Review: What Made Maddy Run

I finished this book last week. What Made Maddy Run is written by Kate Fagan, who, as her website bio lays out, "is a columnist and feature writer for espnW, ESPN.com and ESPN The Magazine. She is also a regular panelist on ESPN's Around the Horn and can also be seen on Outside the Lines. Previously, Fagan spent three seasons covering the 76ers for the Philadelphia Inquirer." In addition, she was also a college athlete, as was Maddy Holleran, which I believe probably had a lot to do with how she wrote this story.

This book, in a nutshell, goes like this: Madison Holleran was the "all-American girl." Beautiful, smart, athletic, and funny. She had great middle class parents, great close friends and an enviable life. Maybe she had some underlying issues that could have been further addressed prior to college, but running cross country for Penn and her use of Instagram are mainly why she ended up committing suicide. It reads as if there simply wasn't a whole lot more that could have been done to help save her, because her use of Instagram had made her feel that life was so superficial that she couldn't truly connect to people any longer.

It was heartbreaking to read about Maddy, and I felt for her, but I just did not like this book. I think that the author took what had proven to be a successful article for herself (she mentions in the book being so pleased with the response of the article that she didn't quit refreshing her Twitter feed, looking for more kudos, for months) and tried to turn it into a book, without doing much more research. 

As shown with this NPR article, the author again only talked about the pressure put on student athletes and the use of Instagram while promoting the book in the media. And so, that's what was focused on, as shown again here. I feel like the focus on sports and Instagram seems to be aimed at scaring the bejesus out of parents and giving them easy things to place blame on. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe what afflicted Maddy was brought on so simply.

The book repeatedly mentions examples of Maddy's obviously drastic anxiety and perfectionism issues, and even names them as such, yet never much touches on them above blaming sports and IG. Instead, the author mentions repeatedly that she also was once a college athlete who had wished to quit her college team. In fact, the book mentions her own life so much I would say at least a quarter of it is about the author. She seems so stuck on the college sports aspect of things she refuses to see much else, other than Instagram, of course. She mentions Instagram so much I started rolling my eyes every time I saw it mentioned again.

There were a lot of signs of Maddy's anxiety issues manifesting in unhealthy ways, and it is pretty well-known that unchecked anxiety can lead to depression.  These include that she was controlling everything she ate, to the point that people were becoming concerned and talking about it and her weight loss, she often liked to drink to excess, she was extremely hard on herself, especially regarding getting perfect grades, and that she was too scared to learn how to drive and get a driver's license. But each time, the author kind of writes it off with a "maybe this meant more than people saw, but who knows" type attitude. 

Women have been disproportionately burdened with anxiety disorders, and they have shown they can manifest in all kinds of ways. Again, having to be the best at everything is one. I think that blaming Instagram for Maddy's perfectionism issues is like blaming one single straw for breaking the camel's back. As we have been learning in class, the dominant ideals that are imposed on women in our society are harmful, difficult to attain, and have been being put in place for a lot longer than Instagram has been around. And that isn't even touching genetic predispositions to mental illness. 

What happened to Madison Holleran was a shame, but in my opinion, this book really falls flat. I feel like if we are being honest with ourselves, we should all see that Madison very likely could have had issues even without track and Instagram, they would have just manifested elsewhere. It's a problem with society, in the messages we promote, and in our lack of mental health resources, and not a problem that should just be scapegoated onto competitive athleticism and filtered photos. 

If it hadn't been sports, it may have been debate team. Had it not been Instagram, it may have been her home décor and lawn (not age appropriate, I know, but hopefully you catch my point). In short, her issues likely still would have existed in her life. It was something ingrained in her that made her obsessed with striving to be the best, to the point it drove her over the edge. I feel like the author focused on some of the small points so much, she missed the big picture.

Pot, Meet Kettle.

As we all know, there was a really big hurricane in Texas a few weeks ago. As most of us also saw, via the media, Donald Trump's wife, Melania, wore really big stilettos onto their flight to Texas to make appearances regarding the disaster. She changed into sneakers while on the flight, so no, it wasn't like she was walking around Houston as "Hurricane Barbie," as I saw some on social media suggesting. Thank goodness.

That it was even brought up was stupid, I agree. But what I couldn't believe was that there were people on Fox News stating that it was ridiculous for the press to waste time attacking what the FLOTUS wears. I don't know what they are smoking, but as this article in Salon points out and sources, the hypocrisy level of anyone on that network saying the FLOTUS should not be attacked for what she wears is astounding. As the article relays, Michelle Obama was regularly attacked by the staff at Fox News for fashion choices, including many times they thought her decisions to have been too haughty. But now it's wrong to pick on Melania's to-fly-in Louboutins? Why?

And it isn't just fashion that the network has been unfair on. Take their coverage on Michelle's bare arms, which, mind you, is in the politics section. On the flipside, Melania often wears sleeveless dresses and no one at Fox News says a word. And here is their coverage on Melania's nude photos. This was labeled entertainment, unlike Michelle's arms, and they offered the take of Donald Trump himself and the photographer as the main focus. Unsurprisingly, they both defended the photos, and even claimed they were art. Well, I'm sure that Michelle's husband and her dress designer or personal trainer would have had just as many glowing things to say about her arms, if anyone at Fox had cared to ask.

Their coverage of the FLOTUS is extremely biased. I am going to add that personally, I totally think race is a factor. It seemed that there was a lot of effort on their part to try and force her to fit into the image mold of one of President Reagan's make believe welfare queens, which many believe was a strong sociological force in the 1980's in demonizing black women in particular (Alexander 48-49).

Don't think so? Here are the google results for "Michelle Obama vacation Fox News." And here are the results for "Melania Trump vacation Fox News." I suggest you look through the results of each and decide which woman Fox News is trying to paint as having an ungrateful, greedy attitude. Despite Trump having been in office less than a year, he and his family "have broken the secret service budget." Yet Michelle was the greedy over-indulgent one?

But let's try to pretend that their is no chance that race is involved in this lopsided view of how they talk about the FLOTUS on America's most right-wing biased network. What is it then? Michelle Obama holds degrees from Princeton and Harvard. Not only that, she made it to Princeton and Harvard after being raised on the South Side of Chicago. In addition, she was successful career wise in her own right prior to moving into the White House. She is also altruistic and by all accounts, a terrific mother. How is she not every Conservative, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" ideologue's dream come true?

On the other hand, Melania Trump never finished college, not even once she had more than enough means. She came here to model. She doesn't seem to me to hold any real opinions on anything. Literally the only thing I know of her is that she appears to be a good mom. If she hadn't hit the genetic lottery with her looks, where would she be today? Highly unlikely to be anywhere near where she is. What kind of right-wing "rugged individualism" does she represent? Because I don't see it.

So why is she treated so much better by Fox News than Michelle was? If it isn't race related, and isn't indulgence related after all, it seems it would have to be gender role related. Is it the same flavor of abhorrence everyone's one awful sexist uncle had for Hillary? The one that just screamed he couldn't stand to admit a woman may be smarter than him? It certainly feels like it. It feels like maybe Melania wins more respect from the right-wing culture because she "knows her place" as a woman. She is arm candy, meant to be seen but barely heard, and she seems to be okay with it.

As a woman and a mother of daughters, it's just disheartening. We went from being on the cusp of our first female president, after having such an inspiring FLOTUS for eight years, to having a FLOTUS whose greatest life skill appears to be Zoolander-ing her gorgeous face into something that looks like a cats. And yet I read posts from female and male Fox News viewers on social media about being glad Melania will "bring some class back" into the White House.

Seriously?

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness., 2010. Kindle.

My Beef with Sophia Burset

Like many people, Orange is the New Black is one of my favorite shows. If you haven't watched, it’s a Netflix series about a fictitious women's prison. The main character, Piper Chapman, is an upper middle class caucasian woman who has been sent to do hard time. It is the punishment for a decade old crime, committed with an ex-girlfriend, and that ex-girlfriend, Alex, ends up imprisoned along with her. While I can appreciate Piper's character for the contrast it adds, I don't really care for her. And Alex will always be Donna from That 70's Show to me. My favorite characters are definitely some of the other more odd inmates.

For me, I think that Pennsatucky is probably my favorite. If you're unfamiliar, Pennsatucky is a former abortion clinic shooter, who actually commits her crime because they insulted her during one of her own abortions. But the right-wing media ignores that aspect of her crime and instead sells her as an evangelical hero. She ran with it for a while, savoring the role even behind bars. A major component of her falling out of evangelicalism is the friendship she takes up with an atheist, lesbian inmate who ends up being her best friend in the world.

Clearly, this is a show that celebrates diverse women coming together. Other storylines, such as when "the blacks" take in an Asian girl with no other friends, support this notion as well. So, I was taken aback when I heard one of my favorite characters, Sophia, who, as a transgender, is currently transitioning from life as a man into life as a woman, say something dismissive of young women. It was during the third season of the series, while she giving advice to her son (from her marriage while she was living as a man). As NPR explains the scene:

But the visit with her son, who is clearly struggling to process her transition, is just as awkward — especially when Sophia offers to provide advice on dating.

"You want some real advice?" she asks him.

"From my second mom or my used to be dad?" Michael replies.

 Sophia is unfazed. "My dad told me, find a real insecure girl and practice on her. That way, you meet a girl you really like, you'll be good at it."

"You really want to be a lady in a world where men do that?" Michael asks.

Sophia doesn't hesitate. "God help me, I do."

Initially, this irked me. I was irritated with her character, thinking how dare she identify as a woman and then tell her son to use women. Essentially, how dare she appropriate what she likes about us, without respecting us and having sympathy for the ways we are targeted.

I want to make sure I am clear that I'm not saying I think this makes her less of a woman. I'm sure there are some odd moms out that who were born female and have given their sons the same or equally weird advice. If anything, I think that I expected more from her character, given her own struggles to find compassion and understanding. Plus, it was disregard from someone who desperately wants to be recognized as part of the group she was disregarding. For whatever reason, that seems to make it worse.

However, once I thought about it, I changed my mind. I decided I liked that it was included. It was likely a realistic father and son type moment that she was trying to give him, something that really gets said in some households, and it's not okay. It shows that female value and victimization are painted in a different light than any other. If not, why would even someone who has to go through so much to transition into a woman think it was okay to disparage young women like that?

This is why Netflix series are so great. Their dialogues often make you think, and make you talk. While growing up, it felt like every show was the same rehashed ideals and dialogue. It seems like some series have evolved, led the way by HBO and Showtime, and now Netflix and Amazon as well, to include new types of characters and conversations. This is good news because as we saw in The Electric Storyteller, what we watch very much impacts our personal views.

I think for any formerly awkward teenage nightmare, such as myself and many other teenage girls, what Sophia said was disgusting. She has no idea what it is like to navigate a world of aggressive teenage boys, no more than I do what it is like to be transgender. The difference is, I have learned to consider hers. Why has she not mine?