I agree with Amanda Hess at The Sexist

Amanda Hess covers Hollaback DC, and I agree with her. She shares a negative experience of a police officer intimidating her from a car while she was running alone.Unfortunately, there are cops out there who use their positions of power to intimidate women. Normally, I disagree with Hess, but she’s right on this issue.

About a year after I graduated from college, a cop in Tennessee pulled me over for tailgating. Yes, tailgating. (I think I passed a car with less than one car-length in front of me.) I was driving back to my parents house for Good Friday, so I knew that I had not run a red light or failed to stop at a crosswalk. The cop took my name and information and gave me a written warning.

When I told my family, something bothered my Dad about it. He happened to know the officer in charge of all traffic cops  and asked his opinion.  The officer told my dad that pulling over young women for tailgating is a cover for stopping female drivers in order to check them out. Since I was driving a little Honda covered in sorority stickers, I was a prime target. My dad’s acquaintance was extremely upset that someone working for him would pull such a stunt and wanted me to complain. I debated reporting the offending cop’s badge number, but ultimately decided against it. If he was willing to use his position to intimidate women, what would he do in retaliation? It’s not a very big town.

As Hess notes, it might not seem like a big deal when a guy shouts out “Hey Baby!” on the street, but you never know where that guy will stop. Most women have had negative experiences with skeezy guys and are wary. If you’re enough of a jerk to shout at us from the street, how do we know you’re not going to do more?

However, an element of personal responsibility is required. We are adults. In Hess’ case, I would recommend not running alone. In a city like DC, every other person is a runner*. It’s not difficult to find a partner or join a gym. Women should also use common sense. It doesn’t matter if you feel empowered from holding up a Take Back the Night sign. Chances are, it’s not safe to walk around at 2 a.m. by yourself. There will always be bad people out there in the world (both male and female) and no well-intentioned law or protest walk can protect us enough. Ultimately, we must use good judgment and protect ourselves.

I sort of agree with Feministing

Sometime last week, my mom sent me a photo of Angelina Jolie’s daughter, Shiloh, with the commment, “You had that haircut as a little kid.” I replied, “Me and almost every other kid from the 80s.” It’s true. The bowl cut that little Shiloh Jolie-Pitt is sporting was immensely popular with the under-10 crowd during the 1980s.

Last night at the grocery store, I noticed Life & Style with the headline, “Is Angelina Turning Shiloh into a Boy?” and rolled my eyes. Immediately I thought, “Some gender blog is going to cover that tomorrow.” (If only I could monetize my gift for anticipating the reaction of feminists.) Feministing rarely fails to disappoint in expected liberal outrage.

The article is immensely stupid and attacks Angelina Jolie because she’s been cast into the “other woman” narrative since tabloids can’t move past the Brad Pitt/Jennifer Anniston break-up. (If Jolie broke up a marriage, she must be a bad mother!) The haircut is not masculine, nor is Shiloh dressed like a little boy. If anything, she’s displaying some serious prep for a three-year-old.

Feministing, of course, goes off on the other end.

First of all, the gendering of kids’ clothing for a three year old like Shiloh is utter bullshit. There is little to no difference between the body of a young girl and the body of a young boy–the norms we hold around clothing and hairstyles at that age are pretty much made up. There is little difference in kids’ bodies until puberty.

Well, actually that’s wrong. Gender differences are part of our DNA, and toddlers actually go through a pre-pubescence phase. Little boys’ minds are washed with testosterone, which makes them more aggressive, and little girls are washed with estrogen, which makes them more sensitive and observant.

According to The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine, babies and toddlers go through infantile puberty, which starts at about 18 months. It only lasts for 9 months for boys, but 24 months for girls. Brizendine writes:

During this time, the ovaries begin producing huge amounts of estrogen–comparable to the level of an adult female–that marinate the little girls’ brain. Scientists believe these infantile estrogen surges are needed to prompt the development of the ovaries and brain for reproductive purposes. but this high quanity of estrogen also stimulates the brain circuits that are rapidly becoming built. It spurs the growth and development of neurons, further enhancing the female brain circuits and centers for observation, communication, gut feelings, even tending and caring. Estrogen is priming these innate female brain circuits so that this little girl can master her skills in social nuance and promote her fertility. That’s why she was able to be so emotionally adept while still in diapers.

As much as the left doesn’t want to admit, there are strong arguments that gender is imprinted in our DNA and hormonal make-up. Some factors are socially constructed, but many are a result of our brain chemistry or are reactions triggered by brain chemistry. However, the Feministing post continues:

But what if Shiloh was exploring their gender identity? What if Shiloh wanted to be a boy, or wear “boy’s” clothes, or go by male pronouns? That of course, would be unacceptable, according to Life & Style magazine. It might even harm the child. Such a typical narrative around gender variance in the mainstream media.

While this cover is an extreme example, it’s indicative of larger norms that exist around gender. These norms are real, and alive, and affect us from the the moment we are a bump in our parent’s belly to the day we die.

Say what? Isn’t Shiloh three? What toddler is exploring gender-bending? Most three-year-olds are consumed by toys, naps and their families. According to the left’s beloved Maslow, they aren’t self-aware enough at the tender age of three to comprehend the concept of gender. It makes me wonder if the writer, Miriam, has ever encountered a three-year-old before.

So I agree with Feministing that Life & Style was stupid for mocking a little girl, but they went way too far into liberal psychobabble. But be careful. According to Miriam, if you are so inclined to not abort your in utero “bump,” you may be causing gender confusion if you invoke the “larger norms that exist around gender.”

*Someone once told me that you can judge the amount of type-A people in a geographic area by the number of runners. DC has to be in the top 3 for the U.S.

While some of them sound really good like the Rum & Coke and Sidecar, my first reaction was to laugh. Do guys really look at desserts and deem them too feminine to eat? During my years working in various PR sectors, I’ve thrown a lot of events and fundraisers and attended even more. I’ve never seen men refuse sweets because they were too “girly.”

I think it’s an interesting gimmick, and I’m not going to fault anyone for being an entrepreneur. It does strike me as odd because the most masculine examples that come to mind never acknowledge the “masculinity” factor. Unless it’s some Tim Allen comedy routine, did the Marlboro Man or John Wayne ever discuss the inherent sexism in cupcakes? The concept of a manly cupcake simply conflicts with the image of masculinity. Would Don Draper put down his Lucky Strike to pick up a Butch Cupcake?

Is this an interesting sales pitch or masculinity interpreted through the eyes of an urbanized, metrosexual male? According to the web site, “Our objective is simple. We’re men. Men who like cupcakes. Not the frilly, pink-frosted sprinkles-and-unicorn kind of cupcakes. We make manly cupcakes. For manly men.” (They need James Earl Jones to narrate the site for the most impact.)

Are real men going to seek out the most masculine type of cupcakes available or wander clueless into the nearest Walmart and ask the bakery department for cupcakes because their wife/girlfriend/mother sent them? Is this like the dessert version of the cocktail? Real men aren’t going to eat cupcakes covered in sprinkles or order fruity cocktails with paper umbrellas?

I also feel like we’ve arrived at some pre-apocalyptic point in society when reality has turned into a Mel Brooks/Monty Python satire because people are seriously discussing the gender implications of cupcakes.

Both ads build on stereotypes. The feminist answer perpetuates the wage gap myth and makes the usual complaints about how awful it is to be a woman. I think these are silly since relationships are hard and there will always be communications issues between the sexes since we’re wired differently. Society also places different expectations on men and women. Deal with it. Men have issues too.  The only difference: men seem much more capable at laughing at these stereotypes, whereas women whine about them.

Warning: like most things feminist, the second video contains some language. The lefty gals enjoy being crass.

The Dodge ad is created to sell a product, but the feminist ad is a little long and doesn’t give a call to action. Whoever created it did a lot of work, but there’s no web site or activism appeal. Wasted opportunity for them.

Update: Not surprisingly, Broadsheet likes the ad calling it a “ego-blistering spoof!” Feministing claims “You must absolutely watch…” Amanda Hess at The Sexist has a full transcript of the video.

There you go. Feminists fighting the terrible front lines of silly Super Bowl ads. Glad to see that there aren’t more important battles out there.