Showing posts with label Common. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common. Show all posts

Monday, 30 July 2012

What Do Gymnastics, Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Have in Common? Me. [Gymnastics]

What Do Gymnastics, Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Have in Common? Me.When people find out that you grew up as an observant Jew, a game I like to call "20 Questions About Orthodox Jews" is inevitable. Here are a few couple of prime examples: "Is it true that you guys have sex through a hole in a sheet?" Or: "Why do married women shave their heads and wear wigs?" And once, they find out that I took gymnastics classes about as often as I went to temple they ask, "How did you tumble in a skirt?"

Leaving aside the first two questions for the moment, I'll address the third. No, I didn't flip in a skirt. I wore leotard, which made gymnastics easier but Orthodox Judaism a lot more complicated. And for seven years, I worked through my athletic and religious issues — where else — but in the basement gym of a synagogue.

Every Sunday morning, I was coached by Nina, a former New York State champion on several events. A college student with braces and rubber bands, she was the most feared instructor in the gym, which was no mean feat since the rest were Russians. Nina dressed in army fatigues and pulled her baseball cap low. She stomped across the mat in shit kickers in spite of the fact that shoes were not permitted on the equipment. And when she yelled at our group, which was often, the entire gym stopped to watch.

Despite the harshness of her coaching style, we wouldn't have gone to any other group. Tis a far, far better thing to be pushed too hard than told to simply do your best, which is something Dickens would've written had he done gymnastics. Nina drilled us in the basics but then coached us through much more difficult skills, such as flyaway flips off the uneven bars and back walkovers on the balance beam. We didn't see Nina's demands in a malicious light. Rather, we understood her purpose — to make us better gymnasts.

I took whatever Nina said as gospel. When she advised me to do extra pushups and sit-ups at home in order to master a new skill on the uneven bars, an event that demands an excess of upper body strength, I did them every night. A few weeks later, I successfully performed it on the bars, which shocked her. I didn't understand why. "You told me that if I did pushups and sit-ups every night for a month, I would get the trick. So I did," I informed her.

"You really did them at home? Every night?" she asked, incredulous.

"Of course," I replied. For a coach who demanded such utter respect inside the gym, she seemed to have no expectations of her pupils once we were outside of her purview. She seemed oblivious to the power she wielded over me. My mother once yelled as we locked horns over the mess in my bedroom: "I bet if Nina came here and told you to clean it, you would!"

While that was probably true, I doubt I would've hero-worshipped Nina the way I did had she been encouraging housework. The reason I followed her Pied Piper-like over the vault and off of the balance beams was precisely because what she asked me to do didn't seem at all ladylike.

Unwittingly, Nina was showing me a different way to be female in the world. I could be strong to the point of being aggressive. My mother, who had been the first in her family to go to college, intellectually conveyed her ideas about feminism to me, insisting that if I got an education, I could do whatever I set my mind to. But what about whatever I set my body to?

Through gymnastics, feminism was communicated physically, which turned out to be much more powerful than its intellectual demonstration. If ideas about inferiority or separateness of women are rooted in our different bodies, then the best way I found to overcome these ideas was by using this same body to accomplish feats of strength that were not considered natural for us.

My teachers at school were always trying to rein me in physically. I was often chastised when I did cartwheels at the back of the room during recess because my skirt flew up as I turned on my hands. "It is not befitting a daughter of Israel," I was told.

They chose to ignore the strength and coordination and prowess it took to perform the skill. Rather, they sexualized it by characterizing it as indecent. Modesty in clothing and demeanor, I was taught at school, was supposed to accomplish the exact opposite. It was supposed to prevent women from becoming sexual objects, but its enforcers, in their zeal to get us to cover up, overlooked the other traits of the female body. My teachers and rabbis were the ones who sought to turn my body into an inanimate object, suitable only for gazing or averting one's eyes.

Nina was also teaching me a different method for interacting with men. Rather than deferring to them, she playfully challenged the male coaches to handstand or handspring or chin-up contests. Watching her compete with the men (and often win) reminded me of the years before I started wearing skirts full-time when I challenged the neighborhood boys to footraces, often outpacing them. I'd pump my legs and arms as hard as I could, until they were moving so fast I felt practically out of control, like a boulder picking up momentum as it rolls down a hill. The more out of control I felt, the more I became aware of my physical power. I was not circumscribed at all — not by fear, concerns about my gender, or by the suitability of my clothing.

However when I started the first grade, I stopped wearing pants. My yeshiva demanded that students dress modestly all of the time. Unlike Nina, my school's administration believed that its dominion extended beyond its doors.

Running in a skirt simply isn't the same. Even if it's flared enough so as not to shorten your stride, when you're in a skirt, you're always glancing down, worrying that the hem might fly up and expose your underwear or knees. Skirts impose self-consciousness, a keen awareness of the femaleness of your body. Anxiety and wind drag slowed me down and I started losing more races than I won.

Yet inside the gym, I continued to wear the skimpy attire of gymnasts. I acted as though the gym was outside the jurisdiction of Jewish law. Even if it was my own personal Green Zone, my behavior engendered no small amount of cognitive dissonance. I had been taught that modesty wasn't really context dependent — if I couldn't walk down the street in a leotard then I couldn't leap in one on the balance beam —but for the time being, I was protected by my relative youth. The full brunt of Jewish womanhood wouldn't hit me until I turned twelve and became a bat mitzvah. So I continued doing flips and tried not to think about what came after.

In the months leading up to my twelfth birthday, I desperately wanted to talk to Nina about what I should do. Should I quit the sport once I became too old to wear a leotard around men? Or should I continue doing the sport in defiance of the rules? I knew what her answer would be. She would tell me to stay with gymnastics, which is what I hoped to hear. Yet even in these imaginative conversations, I'd hear myself rejecting her permission. "But you don't understand," I'd say.

And she didn't. Though she coached me and some other Orthodox girls over the years and knew some of the rules we lived by, she didn't understand why they were important. To her, they were merely lists — things we could eat, things we couldn't; stuff we could do on Saturdays, stuff we couldn't do. She probably didn't see the big deal of moving one item from the forbidden to the permitted list. But in my reality, these items were more like threads in a quilt. If you tugged on one, you end up snagging the whole.

So when I turned twelve, I disappeared from the gym for a few weeks. I did not, however, stop thinking about gymnastics. I watched tapes of competitions I had recorded off of the television and tried my best to mimic if not the acrobatics of the elites then at least their choreography. I practiced my beam routine on the lines of the kitchen linoleum. My mother, after watching a few weeks of my self-directed practices, asked if I wanted her to take me back to the gym. I shook my head. "Do whatever you want," she said, returning to her coffee and newspaper.

Whatever I want. As if! I internally scoffed a la my newest pop culture messiah, Cher Horowitz. In abstaining from gymnastics, I wasn't doing what I wanted. I was doing what I believed I had to do. Rules, I reasoned, weren't there to help you honor deep-seated desires. If that were the case then I would be perpetually walking on my hands and eating ice cream right after a steak while watching Saturday morning cartoons.

Instead I moped and started listening to Sarah McLachlan CDs. But before I completely and mournfully resigned myself to a future of overly sincere pop music and without a sport, I switched tacks. I got mad.

I started thinking about boys. I wasn't yet in the throes of puberty so these weren't sexual thoughts. Boys were still sort of an abstract concept to me, like calculus and space travel. How come, I wondered, didn't they have to worry about modesty? While there were proscriptions regarding the way men dressed, they were mere recommendations, like tipping your barista or flossing. They could play basketball regardless of who was present. Why was no one asking them to give up something they loved? (Though to be fair, they were taught not to masturbate, which was undoubtedly something they loved to do.) I knew that I was never going to be an Olympic champion or even a varsity athlete, but that's hardly the point. I wanted to see how far I could go. It's one thing to hit the brick wall of your own abilities whether they're physical or intellectual. It's quite another to be told what those limits are before you've had a chance to test them.

Once again, I felt like I was six years old, racing the boys down the block. This time, however, I didn't care about winning. I simply wanted the chance to play.

And so I returned to the gym dressed like the boys. I wore baggy clothing — loose fitting sweatpants and oversized T-shirts over my leotard. This, I reasoned, was more modest than the skintight clothing I used to wear. If not the letter of the law, I was trying to observe its spirit.

While Nina said nothing about my attire at first, she finally insisted I had to return to my skimpier clothing for safety's sake after the third time I slipped on the heel of my pants while on the beam. At this crossroads, I quickly took stock of the men in the gym. There were only a couple of coaches and a handful of male athletes, and the gymnasts were likely younger than thirteen. Without consulting the texts, teachers, or rabbis, I decided that it was okay for me to strip down to my leotard and shorts and do gymnastics just as I had a few months prior.

Though this was a relatively small decision that affected only ninety minutes out of the week, it was one of the first times in my life that I assessed what I knew of Jewish law and made my own choice. I had taken stock both of my love for gymnastics and the rules that governed my life outside of the gym. My passion for the sport had arisen organically, from within, whereas the law had been imposed on me from the outside without any regard for who I was as an individual. One felt right; the other I was told was right. On this occasion, I chose myself ahead of Judaism.

From that point, I started to trust myself at least as much as I did the male authority figures that parsed the Talmud and interpreted the law. After all, when you boil it down to basics, isn't that what feminism is about — women who insist on figuring out how to define themselves rather than being told by men who they are? Judaism told me one story about myself — about a modest, young woman who could be smart but not too aggressive about it, and ambitious but within certain limits. I, however, was discovering that this character outline was a work of fiction, at least in my case. I was intelligent and arrogantly wanted everyone to know it. My teachers would argue that I should work to curb these impulses and desires, but not because they were inherently bad. Rather they weren't appropriate for me as a woman. Had a man presented with my traits, he would've been handed the pulpit of a synagogue and a grant from a Jewish federation.

This doesn't mean that I won't listen to anyone, that there are no authority figures in my life to advise me in matters of faith and religion. I have a stable of mentors I trust, but none have earned my implicit trust merely because they hold rabbinic certification. "Because they are rabbis" — the answer my teachers frequently gave when I demanded to know why I had to follow their rules — which is really another of saying "because they said so." That line didn't work when my mother tried it on me at eight, and that was before I had even heard of Gloria Steinem.

However if Nina showed up on my stoop today, more than fourteen years after she last coached me, and ordered me to drop and give her twenty, I probably would. After all, the sages said, "Make yourself a rabbi." Mine just happened to be a Panamanian Catholic woman.

What Do Gymnastics, Orthodox Judaism and Feminism Have in Common? Me.Dvora Meyers is a freelance writer based in Brooklyn. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Slate, Tablet and elsewhere. She writes about gymnastics and Judaism at Unorthodox Gymnastics, and she is the author of Heresy on the High Beam: Confessions of an Unbalanced Jewess. She blogs about woman-y stuff over at The Anti-Girlfriend.

This post is excerpted from Heresy on the High Beam: Confessions of an Unbalanced Jewess, available for Kindle. Republished with permission.

Image via Shmel/Shutterstock.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Why carriers can’t create common APIs (but need to keep trying)

The Wholesale Application Community (WAC) will go down in mobile history as one of the most ambitious, but failed, attempts at collaboration by our dear telco friends. Locaid’s CEO Rip Gerber explains why these powerful carriers — all facing common threats — couldn’t get their WAC together.

handshake_buddawiggi

Over the past two decades, I’ve built and sold a few companies that have exploited the simple fact that the bigger an industry behemoth grows, the harder it gets for it to serve its customers. At my last company, Intellisync, my teams built products that wireless carriers needed but couldn’t deliver. Today, I run Locaid, a company that simply ?lls a void between giant carriers and giant enterprise developers. It’s hard enough for a single giant to innovate, so why do they always assume a coalition of giants will fare better? They never do.

Coalitions seldom succeed unless the members are motivated by a supreme crisis. Throughout history, a major threat or act of war was often needed to compel independent and competing parties to join forces for common gain: the United States, NATO, the international ban on whaling. Business can be war too, but the stakes aren’t usually high enough to keep a collective of companies aligned under a common agenda. Except for OPEC or Hollywood agencies, coalitions tend to generate more fodder for the press than progress.

Last week, another coalition tombstone was etched. As Kevin Fitchard explained (and eerily predicted) in his recent article: the Wholesale Application Community (WAC) will go down in mobile history as one of the most ambitious, but failed, collaboration attempts of our dear telco friends.

WAC, if you don’t know, was an industry alliance of 47 of the largest worldwide mobile operators. It was formed in 2010 to help wireless carriers compete in an open, unwalled mobile world. Rather than force developers to work with each individual operator to get APIs, the carriers would design a “single API” for location, billing, messaging and more. This would be the “iTunes for carrier stuff.”

Why couldn’t these powerful carriers — all facing common threats from open, data rich, ubiquitous platforms such as Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon — get their WAC together?

Membership impatience. Collectively, the carriers endeavored for more than two years to launch a “single API,” and failed to develop much of anything. Now the carriers are individually frustrated with the GSMA and WAC. Rightly so. You won’t find the AT&T and Verizon chief technology officers publicly bashing the GSMA. But within their carrier walls, you can hear their screams at LTE and 4G speed. Don’t be surprised if splinter groups of carriers leave the WAC’s original 47 members behind to form their own common API solutions. And they should. Developers want tools and APIs that are easy and ubiquitous. A group of 47 single-minded designers won’t ever create a slick, friendly interface.

APIs aren’t backhaul. Deploying servers and towers is easy after developing decades of monopolistic experience. But building APIs is hard. Those of us that do it well (such as Apigee, or my company, Locaid) have spent years and tens of millions of patient investor money connecting behemoth, byzantine carrier networks to create easy-to-use APIs for developers. You cannot create an API by committee. And while the carriers have done a yeoman’s job of offering up more APIs – either directly or through partners – for high-demand services such a billing, messaging, location, it’s not an effort conducive to a group. The task is made more difficult for carriers because top developer talent wants Apple, Google or the latest VC-backed wunderkind on their resume — not AT&T or Vodafone. Carriers are trying to attract top developers, but that takes time. “Coding at carrier” isn’t hip in the college dorms just yet.

Policy versus products. Ultimately, WAC was a policy-setting machine, not an execution machine. And it certainly wasn’t a market-making initiative, which is what the carriers all desperately want. Some of us in the API enabler market have more sales people selling carrier API data than all 47 WAC carriers combined. It takes focus, design and execution to win share. And if you can’t launch product, you won’t survive. Hence, RIP WAC.

WAC will be resurrected. The concept of carriers working together comes around every few years. WAC will rise again (under a new brand no doubt). But even if carriers can get their network technology people to agree on standards, code, enablers, SLAs, etc. (good luck with that), and even if the carriers’ legal teams can agree on liability, privacy, etc. (more good luck to them there), they still have a major issue: carriers will have a hard time selling APIs. These are telcos. The sales teams, commission incentives, even the product offers, need to be dramatically restructured to become “developer friendly” services. Carriers can get there, but the journey will take time.

It’s a shame, really. The carriers want what WAC promised, and two-by-two they will eventually get there. WAC and carriers are populated with smart, innovative folks, and they should be admired for their ambition and fight. But carrier machinery — processing billions of bits per second at five nines of reliability — isn’t built to move at developer speed. Not out of the gate.

This is a great opportunity for developers. The message from the market is now loud and clear: “WAC is dead! Long live WAC!” The holy grail of “one API” remains. Venture capitalists and strategic investors have been funding the market-driven API agenda to date, and they will continue to do so because it’s the right thing to do. And it will be up to nimble, focused innovators to fill the need, one API at a time.

Rip Gerber is the founder and CEO of Locaid. The company offers Location-as-a-Service that connects developers to Tier 1 carriers via a single API.

Image courtesy of Flickr user buddawiggi.


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

Sexual Dissatisfaction Found to Be Common in Diabetic Women [Health]

Sexual Dissatisfaction Found to Be Common in Diabetic WomenPoor Paula Deen might be mourning more than just the loss of butter. :(((

A group of over 2,000 ethnically-diverse women between the ages of 40 and 20 were studied by the University of California at San Francisco's Women's Health Clinical Research Center, comprised by insulin-treated diabetics, non-insulin-treated diabetics and non-diabetics.

Researchers discovered that an outstanding number of the diabetics, particularly the 139 receiving insulin treatment, cited lubrication issues and were 80% more likely (FUUU) to report difficulty achieving orgasm during sex, culminating with a low overall satisfaction rate that's twice as high in insulin-treated women and 40% higher in non-insulin-treated diabetic women than the rate of non-diabetic women. The sexual desire rate, meanwhile, remained equal for all of the women.

Lead researcher Kelli Copeland released the data along with a statement:

Based on this research, clinicians may want to consider assessing diabetic women for sexual problems, particularly among those taking insulin, and counsel them that prevention of end-organ complications may be important in preserving sexual function.

The study didn't distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, but researchers say that the kind of insulin being taken by many of the subjects suggests that a fair amount of Type 2 women were in the fold.

'Diabetes May Cause Sexual Dissatisfaction in Women' [Medical Daily]

Photo via Arkady/Shutterstock


View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.