Halloween Whore-or

If you get the title, then you already have an idea what this post might be about...

It's funny to see the generational differences in Halloween and how it has changed over the years.  In a nutshell, HALLOWEEN IS AN EXCUSE FOR GIRLS TO DRESS LIKE SLUTS.

Plain and simple.  Attention-seeking girls in desperate need of an ego boost.  Now, one can look at my pics from today and say the same thing.  (I won't post them here, because then it'd be true.)  However, the dress to my black cat costume wasn't half as short as some of the stuff I saw today.  

Girls in respectable positions of power, showing off their boobs, their butts and their midriffs.  Unprofessional? Yes.  Unacceptable?  That depends on whom you ask.

Logically, what these girls are doing is ridiculous. However, what guy in his right mind (assuming he's straight) would oppose this?  I don't care how tacky or tasteless it may be or what responsibilities these guys have in stopping goings-on like this in the workplace.  A man is a man.  

Sure, there are your old-fashioned, goody-goodies who may not make as big a deal out of it as other blatantly disrespectful and chauvanistic pigs would.  And of course, there are only so many times you can look at the same thing -- no matter how revealing it is -- before getting bored with it.  And the only reason why other women wouldn't approve of this is A) they're jealous of all the attention, or B) their man is the one who gets a little too immature in these situations and/or makes them feel less than adequate, compared to these girls.  

It's time to face it.  Halloween has turned into the mother of all meat markets -- Today's Special: Hooch a la Spook.

I Need More UN-Reality TV

When I was in second grade, that was when I first realized what the "Year 2000" (way prior to "Y2K") represented.  We would hear that, and automatically we would think that when we went to sleep on December 31, 1999, we'd wake up on January 1, 2000, to a world not dissimilar to the Jetsons, with sky condos, flying cars, and automated lifestyles.  Many things were automated by then, but we were far and away from living in a world where George and Jane would have video conferences (which would happen later on, especially with the advent of smart phones).
Even when I was a kid, MTV (MUSIC Television) and VH-1 (VIDEO Hits 1) were new and had actual videos, which if you think about it, are nothing more than short stories told by a band in song form.

When I was in high school, a show called The Real World probably launched the dreams of small-town kids everywhere, when a bunch of people who were trying to launch some kind of artistic career (music, acting, dancing) auditioned for a conceptual new show: the "reality" show, where things weren't 100% scripted, and edited to show that real life was also as intriguing as the old form television show. 

I can't say that I watch much television these days.  Except for sporting events, I am not a person who is all OMG-I-NEED-TO-BE-HOME-TO-WATCH-MY-SHOW-ASAP.  Even with sporting events, I can follow the action on my phone and never feel as though I'm missing anything.  My husband and I are big fans of the show Dexter, and he loves the new AMC show The Walking Dead.  I can't say I am one for zombie culture, but hey, to each their own.  Another series I am a big fan of is Desperate Housewives, and I am really sad to see this will be the final year it's on television.  One of my all-time favorites is the Sex and the City franchise, and quote it like it's Shakespeare (just don't ask this former English lit major what she thinks about Billy). 

I guess my point is that I like creativity, and always appreciate good writing, and that's what keeps me returning: the compelling art of the written word, whether it's reading a good story, website or watching one unfold on television or on the big screen.

Something that has changed somewhat in television in the "aughts" is what the public wants.  Reality shows kind of take over precedence from unreality.   Shows like Survivor, X-Factor and Biggest Loser are touted as these feel good types of rewards shows, yet the public has shown that they value the voyeur factor here.  I have to admit, the reality show contests I prefer add absolutely nothing to culture (i.e. stuff people aren't talking about Monday morning at the water cooler), like RuPaul's Drag Race and Flavor of Love.  I mean, if you think about it...those shows lean towards the more unrealistic (especially Drag Race, since it's men dressing up as beautiful and glamorous women, adhering to the whole "illusion" thing). 

Look at MTV and VH-1 now.  They promote not videos (except for VH-1 Classics or MTV in the morning or late evenings) but their own scripted reality shows, like The Hills or Jersey Shore, even Basketball Wives.  I have this here bridge I'd like to sell you if you think these shows aren't the least bit scripted, but something about voyeurism comes into play that makes these franchises successful. 

A misconception people have about reality shows is that these "actors" are somewhat not as credited as those on totally scripted fictional shows, but the reality is there they do have to file with the Screen Actors Guild.  In theory, they are making the acting playing field a little bit of a thinner margin, typical to how we fool ourselves that outsourcing jobs is somewhat good for the economy. Meanwhile no one ever applauds the people who make the shows what they are: no, not Snooki or The Situation, but the editors who make the calls about what goes on for the public to see. 


Many things have changed since I was in second grade, talking about the Year 2000 and beyond.  I suppose one of the things that had to evolve was the television, which itself evolved out of radio shows and soap operas.  Now, soap operas are going the way of the dodo, and reality shows based on daytime dramas are taking over.

Call me crazy, but the idea of television and entertainment is escapism.  Haven't these reality-type shows jumped the shark yet?  Gimme more fictional shows, or don't give me anything at all. The only thing that should be reality, in my opinion, are sporting events.

Removing All Doubt

I am all for free speech.  I like being able to speak my mind without ramifications from the government.  I like that I can disagree with a policy or social mores or whatever is on the docket and not have to worry about going into a political prison.  That's what great about our country, I'm sure most of us can agree upon.

There's an old saying that goes, "Best to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."  There are some folks in the public arena who certainly subscribe to that notion, but allow themselves to be raked all over the press.  I don't necessarily agree with some of the viciousness that's spread around, but that's a drawback of free speech, that flame speech is up for grabs.

That is, unless, you are being paid by an entity who feels your comment may have crossed some invisible lines.

There is an old saying in the corporate world that if you are to do something, and mostly if that something is "visible," what would it look like to the company or entity if it showed up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal the next day?

In recent days, the recent debate about Hank Williams, Jr., "Bocephus" himself, made an inflammatory comment about President Barack Obama, wondered how far "free speech" ethics and limitation of those with a difference of opinion affects his status on ESPN's Monday Night Football.  You see, Bocephus provided the MNF intro and was incredibly recognizable to that brand.  I have no idea what the terms of his deal were, but let's imagine that Walt Disney Co, the owner of ESPN, is paying a whole bucket of money for the copyright usage and rights and all that jazz to use that music. 

Oh and what he said?  He just happened to compare President Obama to possibly the worst war criminal in the history of the world.  Other have claimed that what he said was taken out of context, the usual, or that it was "perfectly okay when someone said it about President George W. Bush."  Now, I have to admit, I was probably one of W's biggest critics.  I thought the "Hitler Didn't Need Search Warrants Either" bumper stickers were a bit much.  But you know what -- the difference here isn't that Bocephus has a difference of opinion, or that his comments were taken out of context or even that he said them on Fox News and is a Tea Party supporter.  It's that these schmoes who sold these bumper stickers or made them in their garage are folks like you and me.  They are not on a world stage.  They are trying to make a buck off a political item.  When someone like Alec Baldwin said he did not agree with Bush is another thing.  He did not come out and say, "Bush is Hitler."  There's a big difference between what Williams said about Obama.

Now Williams claims his First Amendment rights were violated here.  Here's a guy who has had the privilege of having a famous name, of being his own man and beloved by millions for his music.  I mean, this guy has made an empire out of the very things that Good Ole Boys stand for.  Not to say he hasn't worked hard to where he got, I mean I remember listening to old Hank Williams Jr songs in my dad's truck as we drove around on the weekends...but he parted ways from a private corporate entity, that had to deal with backlash from derogatory remarks that could be potentially damaging to their brand.

It's nothing to do with race, class, free speech or corporate versus private thinking.  Hank Williams Jr is no schmuck like you and me: he's not begging someone for a job or living paycheck to paycheck.  When this whole thing blows over, he'll still make out nicely, methinks.

Despite what your political or social beliefs are, what makes this world go 'round isn't just love, but also differences of opinion.  It's okay to not like the President of the United States, especially if he's your President and you've come to that conclusion yourself after careful thought, not having been told by a news organization to think a certain way. 

But that brings me to another double-standard about this whole shebbang.  Remember in 2003, when Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made an offhand remark about how the band was ashamed that President Bush was from Texas?  This happened to take place on a stage in London, and the night before attacks were launched on Iraq.

Remember what happened next?  These three talented and family-oriented women were thrown under the bus by the very fan base who supported them, they were called derogatory names like "Dixie Sluts" or told to get back into the kitchen.  I had to admire Natalie, Martie and Emily for taking those negatives and turning them into positives for themselves and their fans who didn't care what they thought?

The difference?  They were women who didn't agree with the President's philosophy, and their music was banned from country radio stations, particularly in the Bible Belt.  These women worked very hard to get to where they were, and were not employed by these radio stations per se.  They disagreed with them and subsequently trashed them to support their own views.

And you know what?  Maines' comments about Bush were not even a millionth as nasty as Williams' was.  Which leads to the question that Richard Roeper from Chicago Sun-Times asks, if Maines was a traitor, is Williams too?

Kind of makes you think, right?  There is a difference between working under someone's brand name and working under your own, and making a flame comment that the world can see or hear, as opposed to privately.

Better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, indeed. 

It's Not About You (Sort of)

My blolleague Dee was throwing some raging bull over at the new Facebook designs.  She certainly was not the only one.  Some of the common refrains I have heard from those who were vehemently opposed to the new set up were they did not like the "rolling ticker" on the right hand side, basically allowing one to "stalk" their friend list and what they were doing (including liking, commenting and posting on their friends' walls, even if you were not on the friend list of that "other" friend), pictures in the main feed were larger than they were used to seeing, and just basic complaining about the drastic changes. 

I took a "wait-and-see" approach.  Humans are naturally resistant to change (especially for change they did not agree upon or made themselves consciously), so I tend to not jump in head first with the rest of the crowd typically. But for me, I don't mind the changes and think of it as a new way to view the people I've become friendly with over the years. 

I have not been using Google + basically because I find Facebook easier to use and more visually appealing.  This is more of a conscious I-don't-want-to-change decision, but also because I think Google is significantly more evil than Facebook is portrayed (especially with people information).  Google is a publicly traded company and has shareholders to answer to.  While Google has never charged its user base for use of basic items like Gmail and using their search engines, Facebook also has not and never plans to (despite what viral status updates you might read in your friend feed).

And don't get me started on MySpace (owned by the evil of the evil News Corp!), which I left probably before it was ever "cool" to jump from that ship.  I was always timed out on that piece of crap, and I found it incredibly tedious to use.  I knew the good it could do, but it was such a pain in the ass that I never wanted to log into the system.  Once I found Facebook, I took to it like a fish to water and never looked back.  I might be a little annoyed by some of their changes but it's a free service and it's enhanced my life for what I like to think to be the better (especially with the flow of information and people meeting I have done over the years as a direct result of it).

Since the new rollout, I haven't heard much from folks in the complaining aspects, but I don't know if that's a combination of complacency, people just not using the application as much or just getting used to things.  A few days ago I had a bunch of status updates of people requesting that I unsubscribe to their feeds.  I'm sorry...I love you people...but I have better things to do than go through each of my 400 friends and manually unclick themselves from my feed.  Not to mention, I really wouldn't know what was going on then!  My friend Matt Cerrone (who founded Metsblog and is a social media consultant) basically hit the nail on the head with this analysis on his Facebook wall:

Did Facebook fans actually forget this is a billion dollar business based on advertising and data collection? The reaction I see from non-tech people to what FB is doing is shocking... and the fact that some people think they can avoid the changes or game the system is down right hilarious...This is a savvy, aggressive company with serious goals in mind. They're an amazing organization, bordering on an institution, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

Just remember, when you post that you ate at Chipotle, or rooted for the Mets this weekend, or needed to go to Rite Aid to find batteries for your radio during the hurricane, Facebook is collecting those bits of information to have those corporations better target their audiences.  Meeting people and friending and networking is a fringe benefit we get from using the service.  

Here's my take on the ire: we get used to the changes that are made to the service over the years, and just accept them with maybe a little holding our nose and swallowing difficulty, but we do it.  We feel as though the changes are not about "us," the user of the system and essentially the consumer, but more for Facebook, a "billion dollar business" as Matt suggests above.  Well, you would be right.  Facebook doesn't give a crap about us, as people...they care about the information that we provide them that they are able to sell as advertising to MAKE MONEY and give themselves a product. 

But as the article link suggests above...we are the product, not the consumer.  And this is where our difference in thinking lies and potentially needs to change if we want to continue using the service.  If not, then try out Google + or get on the Diaspora waiting list.  But realize they use people information in the same vein as Facebook does, so don't be fooled that it somehow "gets better" or "is better." 

It's not about you, it's about them.  Them using information YOU give them, but don't be fooled it is about them. 

Raging Bull

Facebook users are outraged at the "bull" the social networking site has been pulling over the past week.  As if the changes weren't stupid enough, they didn't even give a heads up to their users as to what to expect and when.

First they gave us the "Smart Lists".  I still don't know what is so smart about them.  Next came the "Subscribe" feature, which isn't bad.  And finally, we have the improved News Feed, where you can now see your friends comments and "likes" of other people's statuses and pictures; statuses and pictures belonging to people with whom you are not even friends.  Huh?

And apparently Facebook thinks they know us better than we know ourselves, because in addition to the News Feed having "Recent Stories" and "From Earlier", there's "This blue corner marks a story we think will be interesting to you."  Oh do ye now?

Has anyone noticed the size of wall photos?  They're like three times the size they used to be.  Is that really necessary?

Hey Facebook, you know the old saying, "Leave well enough alone"?  Well the consensus agrees.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Shock Value

How far is too far?

I am an animal lover, but I am not a vegan nor do I consider myself an animal right's activist.  However, I do have two cats, and have always been around animals, so I am sympathetic to causes for animal welfare, such as supporting no-kill shelters and promoting things such as sterilizations.  I also eat organically grown animal products and support local farmers for treating animals ethically.  I stopped eating veal years ago because of my own ethical reasons.

Yet, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, takes the prize for going a little "too" far in getting the attention for their cause. 

This foundation has made it a point to protest at large functions, throw paint on people wearing fur coats, compare World War II atrocities to conditions in animal plants, and show videos of gross conditions in farming communities in the name of "education."  But what I read today was kind of shocking, and I had to laugh a bit. 

Now, PETA has taken it to the next level by combining things to attract a new element: animal rights and pornography.  Known for using attractive women in their campaigns (such as the woman above, in a provocative photo with a rabbit...and rabbits are often used in conjunction with "sex"), PETA has come under assault for using pornographic images and videos to attract a new element.  You know, "education."

"We're hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn't anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site," said Lindsay Rajt, PETA's associate director of campaigns.

No one is more of a fan of free speech and freedom of expression than I am.  And if PETA were being sincere about their efforts to promote the wonders of veganism and living an animal-free existence, I'd think maybe this could help.  Let's be fair: it seems they want to promote their website rather than educate the public on healthy eating and lifestyles, which never goes out of style.  

They seem more concerned with generating web clicks and getting horny guys to "look" at the site, but not getting them to say "hey hot chicks, I'm gonna be a vegan!" 

At the end of the day, if there are women (or men) who are willing to pose nude or do things and get paid for them, not under the influence of drugs and they're being paid for it, I can't complain. 

But PETA are the biggest porn performers of them all, exploiting sex in the name of "animal activism" but mostly for their bottom line.  Seriously, has PETA ever done more good than shock?

The Bare Necessities

I hate paper. I mean, loathe it.  I have a shredder that I empty out constantly.  I get most of my bills online, and if I get a paper statement I freak out. 

So...why do I have so much paper lying around my house?

I guess that's a rhetorical question (especially since my husband is the opposite, and he saves EVERYTHING).  But it's funny because I checked the mail, where I still get my paper magazines (oy), I got a postcard in the mail. On one hand, it's funny these haven't been rendered obsolete, direct mail campaigns (though I have a friend who is a marketing genius who swears by them). But I saw that I had a coupon, and since I love saving money, I decided to look at it, see if it's something I would use.

Turns out, the family of diapers.com and soap.com is offering a pets-centered necessity site, wag.com.  Since I have two cats, this is another thing I took pause to keep around, and take note.

Why is that?  Well, basically, I live in a city, and since I have to walk and take mass transit mostly everywhere, buying stuff in bulk generally doesn't make much sense.  Petco opened a smaller scale store about four blocks from my apartment; however, they stopped carrying the items I went in there specifically to buy (even Petco-centered items, go figure).  The closest Petco that carries the items I need is about 20 blocks away.  But the biggest pain is that we need to figure out a way to get it back. My husband found out that the cat litter we buy is now heavier by five pounds!  I know, such is life of a crazy cat lady.

Anyway, I got to thinking about the bigger picture, of online store formats like drugstore.com, soap.com or wag.com.  I feel like many of these places are invented to make my life easier, and I'm sure others feel that way.

On one hand, I see that there is a need for a tangibility of going to stores, looking at items, especially clothing to judge material, to try them on, etc.  But stuff that we KNOW we are going to use, like moisturizers (I'm a girl, get over it), pet items, diapers for the kids, is it necessary to have to make the trip to the store, hope they have it in stock, and then make it back with said items?

Another thing?  I find it eliminates the "impulse purchase."  Like, if I go to a store, I might buy a pack of gum or treats for the cats, or see if they have a new toy.   Plus, free shipping and not having to schlep this stuff up stairs or across avenues...what's not to love?

The bare necessities of life aren't becoming obsolete, but the means in which we pursue and consume these items is becoming easier and eliminating the brick-and-mortar ways in which we are used to conducting commerce. 

Whattya Think?

I overheard a woman at the store on her cell phone, talking about getting a haircut.  I'm guessing she was speaking to another woman, because she kept referring to the the person on the other end of the phone as "Barb". She was trying to decide if she should cut her bangs or not.  From what I gathered, Barb was saying  yes, because she kept asking her, "Are you sure they will look good on me?"  It got me thinking about how friends react in these situations.  And not just female friends, but male friends too.

As women, we tend to be jealous of other women. It's not a conscious decision we make.  We just are.  Even if we don't want to be, we are.  So we unintentionally intentionally give the wrong advice to other women.  We say we like something we don't.  And we say we are happy for them even if we're not.  Not that this girl wouldn't have looked good in bangs (I really didn't get a good enough look at her to form an opinion), but do you honestly think ole' Barb was giving her honest opinion?

What really caught my attention was this girl's determination in getting Barb's approval.  What ever happened to making your own decisions?

As women, we can insist that we don't care what other people think, and that as long as it makes us feel and look better in our own eyes, that's all the matters.  But who are we kidding?  Human beings thrive on the attention from and acceptance of other human beings.  What good is thinking I look good at the club if not a single guy checks me out?  That's just an example, but you know what I mean.  This girl's dependence on Barb's opinion may be considered a fault, but the truth is, we all do care what others think.

Now, I don't know what this girl's relationship status is. But she needs to be with or find someone who likes the fact that she wants to please others.  A guy who wants an independent-thinking, "I don't give a shit what other people think of me" kind of girl, won't appreciate someone like her.  And all that is fine.  This is just one of the many personality traits that must be compatible with your partner's.

It's not that this girl is unable to make her own decision.  It's more like there is an underlying desire for acceptance, likely caused by having led a sheltered life.

But I digress...

What this girl needs to do, in my opinion, is find a platonic or gay male friend and ask him what he thinks. This guy would have absolutely no stake in the results of her new haircut and would most likely give his honest and unbiased opinion.  Of course, everyone's perception is different and no one person's opinion is law.  But that's where forming her own opinion comes into play.  Not Barb's.

The Heart of the Matter

For-give (verb \fər-ˈgiv\) transitive verb

1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt>

2: to cease to feel resentment against (an offender): Pardon <forgive one's enemies>

I am not a native New Yorker, and I certainly identify in my Jersey roots; however, I have adopted New York City as my home and the place I love being most in the world. (Okay, MAYBE San Francisco is a very very close second). Today is September 9, but if you were in this region of the country or just a regular person in Whatever, USA, it's hard not to think about how the world changed on a beautiful end-of-summer day in 2001, when two jet liners were used as weapons to attack the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan.

I worked a majority of my career on "the Street," but I was not there at the time of the attacks (I was expected in the office later that day). In fact, the last I remember of the towers were early that very morning, 2 am to be exact, as I left my office (I was a bit of a workaholic those days...ah, to be in my 20s again). The car service took me up the West Side Highway to return me to Jersey City, and I always looked at the Towers as I drove past them. I know it sounds cliche, but I'll always remember how they looked eight hours before they no longer existed.

In 2011, however, we are approaching the solemn 10 year anniversary of the attacks. Of course, no year is complete without a "credible threat" to our national security. What people outside of New York don't realize is that according to the Federal "Terror Levels" (remember, those color-coded schematics) is that we are always at a heightened level of vigilance. Just now, the police presence is more visible, and we see more machine guns. We're used to this by now. At least, I am. Having worked downtown, and most notably by the New York Stock Exchange and the Federal Reserve, I am used to seeing police presence with their machine guns at the ready. A little excessive? Perhaps. The thought is to give us a secure feeling (though to be honest, seeing those guns out in the open doesn't really make me feel secure, it scares the crap out of me).

As I said earlier, we're approaching the 10 year anniversary, but New York City is faced with the reality of this absence and that day every day. Even if you don't live or work downtown, the void still surrounds us, and something changed that day in New York. Maybe innocence. But as avant garde artist Art Spiegelman called that area, it's the "Shadow of No Towers."

Now I don't know if it's this year that's different, but it seems more people are prominent with either displaying their patriotism...or perhaps it's something I've just seen and was acutely aware, but didn't pay any mind to it TILL now, the 10th anniversary. However, I was walking around midtown Manhattan this morning, and a few things caught my attention. For one, there was a lot of foreign news vehicles around the area. Some Argentian television station asked me for my opinions about the city, and I gladly gave them (I'll discuss them in a minute). But when I walked away, I noticed that someone walking into an establishment (clearly, a union worker based on his gear) was wearing a shirt commemorating 9-11. The back of it was a design of the towers, with the American eagles around it and a flag, with the following slogan:

"Never Forget...Never Forgive."

Which led me to this question, the "heart of the matter." Being in this region, and being an American, I know that I cannot forget 9-11. Not only did the city change, everyone changed and the country changed too. We see things that we accept as normalcy now, such as restrictions of liquid on passenger flights, full-body scanners, taking off our shoes as we walk through the detectors (I often joke that some day soon, we'll just have to be buck naked walking through those things). I was reading about a class based on September 11th at Rutgers University has students interviewing families who were directly affected by the events and their stories resulting from their projects, and the overall knowledge that 9-11 is a part of their lives that they are forced to carry, but they have to also make a conscious decision to make it a part of them, and not define them. I think that goes for all of us, whether we were directly impacted by it or not. September 11th is a part of us.

Yet, what I saw on this guy's shirt, he probably didn't think too much about it. It's still weighing on me, though. As the saying went, "Forgive and Forget," but one does not forget but one can forgive? I've been trying to look for who, if anyone, would be worthy of forgiving?

I'm not sure. Things have changed. Osama Bin Laden was assassinated in the spring. Downtown Manhattan has changed considerably, some for worse, some for better. The "Freedom Tower" has made a lot of progress in the last year, and the development commission made it a point to make the area a hub. A memorial is going down there, but at the same time, a push was made to make Lower Manhattan more of a place to congregate and live/work/eat/breathe. For better or worse, LoMa was not pushed to be a residence.

The terrorists certainly did not win if people are willingly living down there now.

I think the most important part of this day is to not forget. To honor the victims and their families. And to honor our country. George W. Bush once said that freedom was attacked, and freedom will be defended. As we see, this ongoing "War on Terror," whether you agree with it or not, still defends that freedom daily.

But the forgiveness thing got to me. I mean, who exactly would we forgive if that's the case? The men who carried out the attacks are dead. The masterminds are being brought to justice. Bin Laden is no longer around. And his henchmen are being brought to justice too. Not one of them ever showed remorse for that loss of life. That, to me, is not worthy of forgiveness.

Perhaps there are those who look for a scapegoat who want to blame something, someone, an ideology, an abstract ideal that one cannot put their finger on but know it was the center of the ethos of carrying out such a hideous attack. We know, though, that these extremist belief systems are not indicative of the whole belief system. Perhaps it's part of the healing process to understand that people of all walks of life died as a result of these attacks. Assessing blame is not enough. To move forward, isn't forgiveness a part of that healing?

Forgiving may be the wrong word. We won't forget, and justice is still being served. THAT is what is important about that day: honoring those we have lost and making sure their honor is preserved by pursuing those who masterminded the evil behind it. I may process this whole forgiving/forgetting quotient, but honor is the most important part of this day and going forward.

Things Dr. Roman Taught Me

Being an opinionated, intelligent and articulate woman, even in this day and age, is not something that's encouraged. I have a feeling that a lot of this is due to generational shifts where it was presumed that women had a place and a slot to belong to in society.

I suppose that some people didn’t get the memo that the Constitution was actually amended once upon a time to protect the rights of women. But I digress.

I went to an all-women’s college, and the underlying theme of feminism was prominent along with leadership roles of women. Around the time I started, there was a study that identified a weakness of girls in math and sciences, and that boys were typically pushed to go into those careers. I thought it was hogwash, but then again, I was in an all-women’s college. To me, there was no question of who was a leader. We were encouraged to speak up and debate and have it be healthy and energizing and supportive as well. As with human nature, it didn’t always go like that, but I did manage to enter the work force as a confident young woman who was not afraid to speak up or keep up with the boys (which I later did see first-hand in investment banking, but I’ll get to that later).

Dr. Roman was one of my English literature professors, and a common theme in many of the works she chose were women-focused, such as reading Charlotte Bronte, the Odyssey but focusing on Penelope’s role while Odysseus was out nailing the sirens while on the open seas, and having a better understanding of mythology in popular culture. Yet, I’ll never forget when a young woman in class made sort of a bitter comment about feminism, and said, “I don’t know what woman had the idea to open her big mouth. But I would have been perfectly happy staying at home and taking care of the house.”

To which Dr. Roman looked at all of us, shook her head solemnly and said, “Oh no.” The response got a laugh from the classroom. She told us that feminism wasn’t just about staying at home or working full-time or choosing a career over family or vice versa (though again, I will point out, I’ve seen that happen in the working world). No, she told us, feminism was that women could be whatever or whoever they wanted to be. So contrary to popular belief, if a woman wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, or wanted to have an outside career, she did not need to be penalized for it by other women. In fact, feminism made that choice possible.

I never forgot that.

Yet, I see the struggle first-hand with women against women, especially in social media settings. It’s made people more vocal with a larger soapbox from which to preach, but also has an underlying notion of negativity and even violence infiltrating these threads.

I think about how Dr. Roman defined feminism, and it’s something I hold to a high standard of how I conduct myself. Yes, it makes me angry when I see a perfectly able woman go on maternity leave, and then come back to find her job chopped up between three analysts, just so in a few months they can let her go. It makes me upset when a woman with an opinion who may be running for public office is accused of being “too male,” and yet when she displays emotion, “isn’t ‘fit’ to be President” or whatever office she may be running for. It’s a double-standard, and yet, most women do the same things themselves within their own population.

I’ve had my own problems with differing views of feminism, those contrary to my own. I guess when I see a woman working at H00ters or Hawaiian Tropic Zone, I see two things going on: one is that these women are adults and if they want to flaunt themselves to make a buck, more power to them. The other is that they are kind of exploiting men with bank accounts who spend a lot of money objectifying women. Yes, I could get upset about the objectification. But on the flip side, if these women were not drugged or exploited to do get jobs there, I see no problem with it. Plus, these places also hire men, so it’s not an issue to me.

Yet, I’ve been called out for not being “feminist enough” for simply disagreeing with viewpoints of what feminism could and should be. I’ve been harassed because I pick and choose my battles as far as women’s rights go. In an ideal world, of course I’d like to see women on an identical pay scale for men in equivalent roles and no glass ceilings. I’d also like to see women not be penalized by their own gender and the male aristocracy for taking time off to be with their families or wanting to balance their work-family. I don’t see anyone calling men out for taking time to be with their children when they are little.

It’s only become more prominent with social media tools such as Twitter. In fact, I was recently chastised by someone I considered a very good friend of mine outside of these forums, because she felt I was not taking her side enough in little Twitter wars. Yet, someone who is a proponent of free speech is penalizing me for simply not keeping up with whoever is her enemy this week, I felt this was a cop out for simply feeling under attack. I also have it on authority that she took this behavior with other mutual friends. Let me just state that this was not an isolated incident. It was cold and calculated.

It’s just Twitter, sure, but at the end of the day, if this person is cognizant of my social interactions in an open forum that’s free for anyone, chances are they are disapproving of my social interactions outside of them as well. And if I need to censor myself for fear of being attacked by this person, that kind of takes the fun out of these forums, right?

But at the root of it, I feel as though women are under attack by other women and if they are not immediately on their side, it’s seen as a liability. It’s only then I take solace in the words that Dr. Roman spoke about that day in class, when she enlightened by saying that women could be or do anything they wanted to be.

And isn’t that the very definition of feminism?