Heretics' almanac

A word about the n-word

So Andy Dick made a joke using the "n" word and had to apologize. He apparently used it to make a point about Michael Richards's blow-up, and there's more apologies going around.

I think the "n" word is offensive, and I don't think anyone should use it. But there's something very bizarre about the logic. If the "n" word is offensive uttered by anyone that wouldn't be the target of it, why is it ok to use it if you're the target? Why should the word mean something completely different depending on the skin color of the person who is using it?

I guess the answer is that the person who could be characterized that way has experienced the bigotry that goes along with the use of the word from the other side, so to speak, but so what? Either a word has a negative connotation or it doesn't. I think it does.

PC Holiday

All over New York, Christmas trees and Hanukkah menoras are popping up. I'm reminded of an old episode of Friends that has Rachel, Phoebe, Joey, etc., decorating for Christmas, and Ross polishing a Chanukkah menorah. Yeah, all that time Christians are busy making cookies, decorating, buying trees, etc., is about the time it takes Jews to polish the Chanukkiah.

Another anecdote: several years ago, the US Postal Service issued a chanukkah stamp to round out the annual Christmas stamps. When asked whether he was satisfied with this, a leader of a Jewish organization said, "No. The USPS is missing the point. We don't think any religious holiday should be explicitly endorsed by the USPS."

So here's where I'm at. I'm touched that so much effort is made to include others in the holiday celebrations, and I think there's much to be said for a shared observance of the middle of winter, lighter times, and certainly themes of generosity, peace, etc.

But I'm fine letting the Christians celebrate Xmas. I don't begrudge them their celebrations at all and think they should make the most of it. I don't get offended when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, but I'm always a bit unsure whether I should tell them that it's not applicable. Usually, I smile and say "thanks and the same to you."

Norah, Ned, and the male condition

I've been reading Norah Vincent's book Self-Made Man, her account of life as a (straight) man in various, ostensibly typical male situations. She joins a bowling league, frequents strip clubs, goes on dates, attends a monastery, and hangs out with an Iron John crowd.

Norah (she seems that familiar to me) has written an excellent book that I can only hope gets recognized as a major contribution to inter-gender understanding.

To me, it's a little disturbing to realize that for all the time we spend with each other and obsessing over each other, men and women understand very little about each other. By her own tacit admission, Norah went into this experiment with some rather unfavorable perceptions of men.

How modern girls get modern boys to be civilized

Caitlin Flanagan writes in the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly about the apparent rise in casual oral sex among early teens, or more specifically about the phenomenon of girls performing fellatio on boys without any expectation of reciprocity, love, commitment, whatever.

Several people have told me enough anecdotes about this for me to believe it's really true.

Typically, the reaction is something like Flanagan's:

Obviously, there was no previous data to compare this with, but millions of suburban dads were quite adamant that they had been born too soon.

Suburban dads who don't have teenage daughters, I would imagine.

What to make of this?

O'Reilly needs lot more cards

Bill O'Reilly, among others, is taking great offense that a lot of stores are asking their employees to wish people a "happy holiday" rather than a "merry Christmas." He's actually getting strident about this, accusing someone (not sure who) of fighting a war against Christmas.

At first I thought a good idea would be to start a grassroots movement to overwhelm O'Reilly with cards that wish him "happy holidays" and send "season's greetings," since he seems to believe these sorts of well wishes are offensive. But maybe it would be better to send him greetings for every holiday he doesn't celebrate, whether religious, national or what-not. I'm sure he'd be glad if we wished him an easy fast for Yom Kippur, or Ramadan Mubarak during the month of Ramadan; not to mention the various Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc. holidays. And let's not forget that the Christian Orthodox liturgical calendar is different from the Western one, so we should all wish that he celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc., at least twice.

Maureen Dowd is one hot chick

I actually don't enjoy Maureen Dowd's columns much.  She is annoyingly obtuse and overstated at the same time; a bit like comedians that make a joke where the punchline is so obvious you wonder if you actually missed something.

Her article in this week's New York Times Magazine is a bit of a personal essay, I suppose, about the difficulties of being a woman in today's age.  According to Katie Roiphe in Slate, Dowd complains that the world hasn't gotten any better for accomplished women, that men still prefer the subservient type.

Rophie points out that plenty of men seem to find Dowd pretty attractive.  I saw her on the Daily Show and thought she was enchanting and much funnier in real life than in her columns.  But she's complaining that this "how to get and hold a man" thing still seems to be working.  So my question is:   

Tomorrow's nuptials

Taking a break from the funeral in Rome, Slate now turns its attention to the wedding of Charles and Camilla, pointing out that:

In an age when preposterously coiffed tycoons engage in serial matrimony with ever younger and more beautiful partners, Charles is doing his bit to atone for the sins of rich, middle-aged men everywhere. He's making an honest woman of his age-appropriate partner, a woman with whom he is well-matched in looks, habits, and hobbies, whom he has known and loved for more than 30 years. Charles' mistake was to get his weddings out of order: He married his first wife second and his trophy wife first.

Let's be honest with ourselves: we're giving the Duke of Rothsay (his much-cooler-to-pronounce title in Scotland, where is not the Prince of Wales) such a hard time because most of us would have chosen Diana over Camilla any day of the week,( though perhaps not in 1971 when Charles and Camilla first met and Diana was 10 years old).  We're appalled by his taste more than his morals.  Diana was a hottie, Camilla gives us the skeevies.

Then again, only Charles had the opportunity to fuck both of them, and he probably had his reasons for wanting to be Camilla's tampon rather than Diana's stud.  In other words, there are other variables to consider here that we (thankfully!) aren't privvy to. 

I - for one and in spite of the off-language characterization - wish them well.  Camilla takes away from what little glamour Charles had but probably makes him much happier.  Sod the tabloids, I say.

If porn is heaven, what his hell?

In Norway, where pornography is illegal, Deep Throat is considered a piece of film history, so every once in a while someone wants to show it - for academic interest only, of course.  The premise is that you can watch porn as long as it doesn't arouse anything but intellectual curiousity. 

Laura Kipnis also has something to say about Deep Throat, now that it's being re-released along with a documentary.  Her punchline:

Deep Throat tells a labyrinthic story about sexual pleasure—a labyrinth that is the female inheritance—then magically fixes it. In its coded, sometimes ludicrous, frequently offensive way, pornography does tell certain unpalatable truths, then offers an antidote to them—one that millions can't seem to live without these days.

Is this a terrible thing? According to anti-porn forces, yes. But if reality can't compete with porn, isn't it reality that should be doing the apologizing?

Along with my favorite line:

The usual impediments to acquiring sex don't exist in pornutopia: Forget social convention, sexual repression, your partner's personality foibles. Porn is a world where personality simply doesn't matter: what a refreshing vacation from the daily reality of coupledom in which one partner's personality tics and the other's inability to deal with them is surely the leading cause of couple dissolution, not to mention the sexual anesthesia (or antipathy) that generally precedes it.

(I can only hope that pornutopia makes it on the shortlist of the American Dialect Society's word of the year for 2005.)   

It is interesting that very few people will openly approve of pornography.  The right is against it because they're against sex; and the left is against it because they think it objectifies women and victimizes (only the female?) actors.  The centrist position is that well, it is of course offensive, and especially to women, and who would watch the filth anyway, but there is this matter of free speech and the slippery slope, and we're leaving it to the courts anyway.

Real World vs. Michael Jackson

Dahlia Lithwick, one of the best writers in Slate, wrote this about the Michael Jackson trial:

Don't ask jurors to understand him. Just ask that they revere him. But is it really going to work in this case? Is a trial about whether or not a man can control himself around children best presented by showing a man who can't control his public behavior or image? If ever there was an opportune moment for Jackson to manifest some understanding that he resides in the real world and understands its rules, one would think this would be that moment.

I know a couple of people in law enforcement, and they all tend to believe Michael Jackson is innocent.

A lot of johns in Norway

According to Aftenposten today, 17.5% of all men between the ages of 18 and 49 in the greater Oslo area admit to having had "bought" sex; the number for all Norwegian men in the same age group is 13.2%.

Doesn't that seem like a high ratio?  It means that 1 in 6 men in the Oslo area has willfully committed a crime that also (and perhaps more importantly) subjected his ego to the fact that he couldn't get "it" in any other way. 

Such prevalence also strengthens the point that prostitution is a public health problem for the buying population as well as the sellers.  Sex with prostitutes is, after all, not just a matter of sexual release; it's also about realizing a fantasy about human relationships - the willingness to suspend disbelief long enough to believe that the prostitute is granting you intimacy.

I'm not trying to equate the victimhood of the john with that of the hookers', but I am suggesting that prostitution can't be reduced to a matter of sexual oppression of women; it's also a matter of emotional desperation among men.