Recent Trend: Sexist Family Photos

These types of pictures always make me cringe. The first time I saw a particular photo of this theme, I mistakenly believed it was an aberration. In fact; it appears to be a recent and unfortunate trend in family photography. To call this “unfortunate” might not be most peoples’ reactions to these pictures. A more common response might be, “awww…” but it is unfortunate, because these pictures are sexist. If you looked at these pictures and thought they were cute, you are sexist. Whether you are a man, woman, goat, or cat, if you think this is “adorbs,” you are sexist.

Maybe you don’t care; and that’s ok. However, when women are taught from the day they are born that they need big strong men to take care of them, protect them, and employ violence to further their purported interests, it is not to their advantage, but to their detriment. These pictures were presumably taken to celebrate or commemorate the arrival of a daughter. Yet, the salient theme for celebrating the inception of this human life is not what goals she may achieve or obstacles she may conquer, but the many things from which she apparently must be shielded. The inane little chalkboards do not say, “One day, she’ll discover the cure for cancer,” or “One day, she’ll out-lawyer you,” or if we want to keep with the theme of violence, “Don’t mess with her- because she defends herself and will fight back.” They say, “We will protect her.”

From day one, the expectations from a female are not that of decision and action; they are of helplessness and passivity. Sit still, be good, and let papa and brothers take care of you. This kind of attitude does not bode well for a sense of independence, freedom, or personal responsibility for anyone. From what, exactly, is it that she must be shielded? Historically and culturally, men beat their chests, grunt, and “protect” their female family members from sexual advances of other men – even when the advances are welcomed by the women themselves. These attitudes are rooted in the idea that women are property and the sense that it is pretty much the greatest humiliation and debasement ever if your daughter/sister exercises sexual independence.

The words “Don’t Mess With Her” and “We’ll Protect Her” immediately bring to mind the age-old stereotype of men threatening other men who dare approach their sisters and daughters. Fathers advising harmless potential suitors that he owns many guns. Brothers threatening to throw punches at an innocent prospect deemed to be unsuitable for their sister. I say “age-old,” but that’s entirely inaccurate. I was at a dinner party not 2 years ago where a man proudly declared that he menacingly advised his 16-year-old daughter’s boyfriend of the loaded shotgun he keeps in the house. He shouldn’t have been proud; he should have been embarrassed that he literally mentioned deadly force merely because a teenager dared take his daughter out on a date. This is not valiance; this is psychopathy.

The idea of men acting as the violent gatekeepers to the sexuality of their sisters and daughters is not funny or cute; it’s base, animalistic, and does women no favors. It’s time for men and women who perpetuate this nonsense to stop behaving like cave people. It may come as a surprise to some, but when inculcated appropriately, women are entirely capable of making their own decisions, with or without the approval from the men in their family.

There is clearly a gender divide here. There are no corresponding sibling photos featuring older sisters and a baby boy. The ridiculous “protection” motif is exclusive to females, perhaps because there is no dishonor when boys deviate from puritanical expectations, and because boys are not property.

Women are people too. Your teenage daughter is going to kiss, and/or have sex with whomever she pleases. So is your sister, your mother, and every other woman walking down the street, because if raised correctly, women recognize and embrace their volition. They not only make their own decisions, but accept the consequences thereof. Get used to it, and stop romanticizing a culture that grooms women from day one to fear sexuality and to accept a demoralizing and pathetic position as an object for male protection.

On Violence, Social Media, and Freedom of Speech

Earlier this month, Jerad and Amanda Miller killed two police officers while the officers were eating lunch in Las Vegas, NV. Subsequently, there was no shortage of outcry against police accountability groups, who were accused of fomenting hatred and violence against law enforcement, and in some sense, encouraging the heinous actions of people like the Millers.

The concern is not entirely misguided; Christopher Cantwell published a nonsensical and egregious article on about how the killing was justified merely because the victims were police officers, and therefore members of an oppressive class. Shortly thereafter, Cop Block removed Mr. Cantwell’s article, as well as his access and privileges as an editor/regular poster. Several administrators at Cop Block issued this statement in explanation of the decision.

These events have raised a familiar debate with respect to freedom of speech and instigation of violence, and once again, there have been calls for restriction, bans, and/or regulations on freedom of speech. In the past, the target of such restrictions have been the written word, or soap box speeches; in the age of technology, the new target (scapegoat) is social medial.

While use of social media certainly poses concerns for instigation of violence, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Even the Supreme Court (which is not infrequently the foe of liberty)  has upheld these rights subject to the test of whether the lawless action is imminent, intentional, and likely to be carried out. This concept is well-accepted because ideas are powerful but ultimately intangible; individuals are responsible for their own actions.

The use of social media for discussion and news is invaluable to freedom. This is particularly the case when major news outlets consistently publish the perspective of the hegemony on matters of politics, war, corruption, police crimes, social justice, etc. Rarely does one encounter a news product of the mainstream media that actually has interviewed the victim, the victim’s family, or even eyewitnesses to heinous police brutalityThe vast majority of articles reporting on police crimes paraphrase police statements and police reports with no apparent investigation. For this reason, social media such as blogs, Twitter, and Facebook can provide an additional perspective on these matters, though occasionally, messages like Cantwell’s unfortunately make it into the mix.

Christopher Cantwell, the Millers, and their vile lunacy are a distraction from the issue. In looking to Supreme Court rulings on First Amendment rights, the cases are littered with similarly deranged individuals of all types – KKK leaders, communists, angry religious loonies ranting on street corners, etc. At the heart of all these cases was not whether their message was valid or just (in many cases it was not), but whether they had a right to express themselves under those circumstances, without restraint.

Society does not ban hammers, kitchen knives, or automobiles, all of which are essential tools for daily life, merely because in some instances, they cause great danger, injury, and even death. Similarly, there should be no call for restriction or regulation on social media merely because sometimes, some mentally unsound people, misuse otherwise legitimate and essential tools for a free existence.

Thus, the issue is not whether there might be some negative consequences of individual action that may or may not stem from influence by social media and the spread of information – because crazy people will always do crazy things, with or without social media. The issue is whether there will be any truth left in this world without social media as a platform for the expression of ideas by disenfranchised people, silenced victims, and by non-government-approved, non-corporate, non-crony, sources.