Wednesday evening roundup

In this rather disjointed piece about how the military's sexual assault epidemic is merely a microcosm of society at large, an excellent point:

American women are born into a society in which the "importance" of beauty and sexuality is emphasized in their personal and professional lives. Despite great achievements in gender equality, sexism persists in the United States and frequently goes unnoticed because it is so deeply engrained in our culture. "It seems to be increasingly difficult to talk about sexism, equality and women's rights in a modern society that perceives itself to have achieved gender equality," writes Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, which uses social media to measure sexism faced by women. In truth, the United States remains far from gender equality: last year, it was ranked 42nd on the Gender Inequality Index, which quantifies and analyzes reproductive health, political and educational empowerment, and participation in the labor force.

Despite progress in many areas, American culture remains bluntly sexist -- and has become increasingly sexualized. The Disney princess movies, which are still a childhood staple of most American girls, convey that beauty and sexuality are key to "happily ever after." The music industry is no different. A 2012 study by Cynthia Frisby and Jennifer Aubrey found that female artists are increasingly using sexual imagery to brand their products and that "young audiences may interpret these sexually objectifying images as important ways to be seen as attractive and valuable to society." Natasha Walter, author of Living Dolls, wrote that, as a result, women are confusing sexual objectification with empowerment. Of course, men also face daunting social expectations to be powerful, strong, and "manly."

In this context, read up on the controversy over Beyonce's Ms. cover. And Barbie's full-scale "Dream" house. And "Reductress" (seriously, it is awesome). But not "A Thinking Woman's Guide to Cleavage," which I won't link to.

So much to say about Jennifer Weiner's case for likeable characters (and the other issues she touches on, such as the lowbrow idea that books should be readable). I agree Claire Messud that there's a double-standard, that male characters aren't as easily dismissed as unlikeable. I am going to stay away from the "Madame Bovary" example just because I don't want to deal with it, and maybe I'll also stay away from Don Draper. But yes, I personally enjoy reading about characters I identify with. They don't have to be perfect--they shouldn't be--but shouldn't they be likable enough that you feel like you have a stake in their story?

Honey Boo-Boo crosses the Atlantic.

I get it, you people are talented, but I am nonetheless triggered into a daze by the mention of quantum anything. You know how straight guys go into a daze when women talk about shoes? Same thing.


This guy nails it and is also hilarious:


He is also a vegan:

He, too, is my hero. (See: "I'm just trying to do what I think is right; why would you give me shit for doing what I think is right?")

On that note, I'm going to disagree with Mark Bittman:

I can see three scenarios that might lead to universal, full-time veganism: An indisputable series of research results proving that consuming animal products is unquestionably “bad” for us; the emerging dominance of a morality that asserts that we have no right to “exploit” our fellow animals for our own benefit; or an environmental catastrophe that makes agriculture as we know it untenable. All seem unlikely.

This much is known, now: We produce most animal products in deplorable conditions, and some of our health and environmental problems can be traced both to dominant production methods and our overconsumption. But we like to eat them, and they’re a pleasurable and even healthy part of many traditional diets and even sound agricultural practices.

First, let's parse. I agree with the first half of the second paragraph, and I'm agnostic about the second (I, personally, don't like to eat them). What I disagree with is that "environmental catastrophe that makes agriculture as we know it untenable" seems "unlikely"; what it seems is upon us. Also, I have mixed feelings about the "right" to exploit our fellow animals for our own benefit. I think we sort-of do have that right; it's natural for many animals to eat other animals. I don't think it's inherently wrong. But I find it wrong enough that I choose not to do it, when the choice is mine. I understand that the matter at hand is "universal" veganism, for which I've never argued. But I don't buy any of what he says as a reason that one, personally, might not choose to be vegan.

***
Pesticides are back in full force (shocker: bugs adapted to genetically modified crops).

You can eat your beauty products, or you can make your own beauty products out of food.