Showing posts with label Female. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Female. Show all posts

Sunday, 12 August 2012

Female Brain Recovers More Quickly From Alcoholism Than the Male Brain [Alcoholism]

Aug 11, 2012 5:00 PM  

Female Brain Recovers More Quickly From Alcoholism Than the Male BrainThe long-term effects of alcohol abuse have always been linked to white matter reduction in the brain, which carries side effects that include flat affect and memory problems, but a new study has now determined that the healing process during recovery is separated along gendered lines.

A study out of Boston University's School of Medicine examined the brain images of 42 male and female former alcoholics as well as 42 non-alcoholics, and found a number of differences between the recovering men and women's scans. Although both saw a depletion in white matter, and the number of daily drinks had a more detrimental effect on alcoholic women (the volume loss 1.5 to 2% for each drink), the female individuals who had been off alcohol for under a year showed the reproduction of white matter, but the men showed no sign of improvement yet. However, in people who had abstained from drinking in over a year, progress had slowed in women, while a definite regrowth of white matter was evident in men.

'Alcoholism Affects Men's and Women's Brains Differently' [Psych Central]

Photo via xpixel/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.

Friday, 10 August 2012

Someone at NBC Apparently Approved This Creepy, Porny Video of Female Olympians [Video]

Someone at NBC Apparently Approved This Creepy, Porny Video of Female Olympians Have you barfed yet today? Get thee to a drain of some kind before watching this video the pervs over at NBC have put together in order to show their appreciation for Olympic bodies of the 2012 London Games. Unfortunately, to NBC, showcasing the "Bodies in Motion" of the XXX Olympiad means taking footage of conventionally attractive female athletes competing in sports that require them to be scantily clad, slowing it way down as the camera lovingly caresses their butts, breasts, and bouncing ponytails, and playing some soft core porn music over it. Apparently NBC is too busy focusing on jiggling ladies' asses to notice ladies kicking ass.

You'd think that something called "Bodies in Motion" wouldn't be code for "Rejected bumper reel from The Man Show," but I guess I'm not plugged in to the hip, with it language of the youths nowadays or on board with the notion that Olympic bodies are at their most noteworthy when they're female, (mostly) white, stereotypically feminine, and thin. At least NBC's contribution to Boner Jams 2012 doesn't include any underage gymnasts.

Not every moment in the 2 and a half minute-long fap fest (which NBC innocently describes as "Spiking a volleyball, jumping off the starting block, and everything in-between. Check out these bodies in motion during the Olympic Games.") is totally gross; footage of the runners clearing hurdles is a beautiful showcase of Olympians competing in the moment for which they've spent their lives preparing. But what's the point of slowed down shots of beponytailed runners jumping up and down and blowing kisses to the crowd? Of tennis players' asses as they just stand there waiting for a serve or beach volleyball players as they encouragingly smack each other on the rear? What's with the bizarre fixation on the female ass as it clears the high bar? And what in the name of Olympian fuck is going on between 1:36 and 1:41, when one semi-anonymous field hockey ass is shown diving and flexing very slowly?

NBC's quest to win the gold medal in the sexist pig decathlon is especially disappointing when you consider the dozens of more worthwhile stories they could be showcasing with video. For example, American women have basically been carrying the medal count for Team USA; ladies are responsible for 23 of the country's 33 gold medals, and without ladies or swimming, America would only have three golds. America's women's soccer team is set to face Japan today in a rematch of the 2011 World Cup Final, which promises to be an incredible game. Where are the women's boxing highlight reels? What about women's weight lifting? What about any sport that doesn't bare midriffs, décolletage, ass cheek bottoms? Was the network having a contest to see which video producer could patch together the most embarrassingly juvenile highlight reel?

The abject inability of some Olympic photographers to refrain from objectifying female beach volleyball players is well-documented, and of course it would be naive if I didn't expect at least a few lone horndogs to make their own slow-mo Olympian appreciation videos (Lochte fans have made plenty of appreciative gifs of the swimmer, for example). But NBC is the official US broadcaster of the Olympic games; for most Americans, the only way to watch what's going on in London. And seeing a TV network treating world-class athletes as little more than tributes to boners is incredibly dismaying.

[NBC]


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.

Wednesday, 8 August 2012

What’s the Right Way to Be a Female Olympic Athlete? [Olympics]

Whatâ??s the Right Way to Be a Female Olympic Athlete?Over the weekend Jeré Longman of the New York Times published this piece about female Olympic hurdler Lolo Jones. It is by all accounts pretty scathing. Alyssa Rosenberg calls it "one of the nastiest profiles" she's ever seen. David Roth calls the article "unfounded and unfair" and Isaac Rauch of Deadspin found it so harsh that he goes to considerable effort to tear it apart line by line. Additional takedowns here and here.

But all these critics of the Times piece are missing the point. Lolo Jones needed to be called out for committing what's become an all-too-common mistake: trying to be Olympic While Female. It goes without saying that she's doing it all wrong. Sure, she's representing her country on the world stage, raking in endorsements, and inspiring an entire generation of young women to achieve their dreams. But Jeré Longman has a point, as he sits in a dark room typing furiously away on his computer while googling "lolo jones sucks amiright".  And his point is this: there really is only one right way to be an Olympic Female Athlete. I understand that this may seem confusing right now, what with all the opinions being bantered about. Thankfully, I've compiled all the rules here, in one place. You're welcome.

DO have a compelling story of perseverance. At the very least, you should have sustained multiple injuries on your journey to Olympic greatness. Bonus points if you come from poverty and/or a broken home. Whatever you do, be sure the sentence "she had a brief and desperate career as a child shoplifter" applies to you. This will come in handy later when the New York Times wants to portray you in a mocking, unfavorable light.

DO execute a non-cynical marketing strategy. Now, normal civilians like you and I may have no idea what a non-cynical marketing strategy looks like, but Olympic athletes should be able to figure it out. One thing's for sure: it doesn't involve you having sex appeal, in any form, ever. *Note: While tempting, non-cynical marketing strategies are not to be confused with non-cyclical marketing strategies, which are never a good idea. The market is always cyclical. I know this from watching lots of movies about Wall Street.

DO be feminine. Consider yourself warned: should your behavior while kicking ass in the sport of your choice arouse suspicion of indecent amounts of manliness, hormone levels are fair game.

DO make sure your looks are more meager than your skills. More meager by a long shot. If you're not sure whether your looks or skills are more meager, ask Jeré Longman.

DO be lucky. It's the only way to win while female.

DO pick a v-word and stick with it. Have you ever been a victim? There goes your career as a vixen. Never had sex? As a virgin, you've forgone the opportunity to become a violinist. And if you would at all classify yourself as vituperative, voluptuous, or venerous, best not try to travel for leisure, lest you come to be known as a vacationer or a voyager in the process.

DON'T talk about your compelling story of perseverance. Let others discover the dark truths of your past and debut them on a network hour-long special featuring touching, feel-good music and interviews with your old neighbors and schoolteachers. The world will come to know your story, but you must never tell it to them directly. The media will do that for you!

DON'T cry. There's no crying in the Olympics.

DON'T be fat. Are you a top athlete competing to be the best in the world? Fatty.

DON'T be hot. Lest your skills be perceived as more meager than your looks (see "do" number 4) and you mistakenly draw more attention to beauty than achievement. Which reminds me:

DON'T be ugly. As an Olympic athlete, it's your job to make sure you're attractive to everybody all the time. On a related note, be sure to get that hair did!!

If this all seems a bit much, there's one simple rule you can follow: DON'T be a woman at all. Because let's be honest: these days, if you want to be an Olympic athlete without incurring the wrath of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets, as a woman you've already messed up your chances.

This post originally appeared on Feministing. Republished with permission.Lori Adelman is a Brooklyn-based women's health advocate and a regular contributor to Feministing.com.

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.

Being a Confident Badass Does Not Make a Female Athlete a 'Diva' [Gymnastics]

Being a Confident Badass Does Not Make a Female Athlete a 'Diva'There have been several great stories to come out of the gymnastics competition at these Games—the Fierce Five's dominant performance to win the team gold medal, Gabby Douglas' victory in the all around, Kohei Uchimura's coronation as greatest male gymnast of all time, the British men's historic team bronze in front of a hometown crowd. But almost as frequently remarked upon as these triumphant tales was a different one more suitable to the pages of a gossip rag than to sports commentary: the American media's insistence on the story of the Russian "divas."

Nearly every time the Russian team appeared onscreen, one member of the NBC crew of commentators hurled "diva" at them like it's an insult. Yet for all the discussion of "diva," the trio never backed it up with any examples of truly negative, un-sportswoman like behavior.

Instead we're shown images of them crying after they lose a competition they hoped to win — and they weren't depicted as snubbing their opponents. Or we were shown a lone fluff segment in which head coach Alexander Alexandrov was interrogated about how "difficult" his gymnasts are. While he admitted they possess challenging personalities, he didn't seem to mind it all that much. In fact, he indicated that he believes that it's part of what goes along with being great. And as former head coach of the Soviet program, Alexandrov has guided many of the champions. He knows what he's talking about.

The Russian practices were described as all out "wars" between the coaches and athletes, whereas American workouts were noted for almost assembly line-like efficiency. Of course, the commentators failed to observe a key difference between the American and Russian teams: the U.S. has enjoyed gloriously good health (for elite gymnasts, at least) over the last year whereas more than one Russian is on the mend from injuries, which explains why their practices had not gone as smoothly as those of their rivals.

(Also, I've had just about enough of describing gymnastics, or any other sport for that matter, in militarized language. In the past decade, this country has fought two actual wars-we should know better. As thrilling and intense as athletic competitions can be, they're not comparable to wars. Several years of hard work is on the line, not one's life. As the saying goes, "There's no glitter in foxholes." That's because they're no gymnasts in foxholes, either.)

The preferred target of NBC's diva-lanche was 2010 world champion Aliya Mustafina. As the 18-year-old stood on the podium, waiting to get the green light from the judges to mount the uneven bars, Al Trautwig filled a moment of broadcast downtime by asking, "Have you seen any diva moments?" (Next time, if you've got dead air talk about the London weather instead.) This seemed particularly out of place because Mustafina, who should certainly be awarded a gold for the best eye makeup of the competition, was patiently waiting for her turn as the judges tabulated the score of previous competitor. That bitch.

Mustafina's practices have been perhaps more fraught than those of her teammates, in part due to her famously intense personality but also because she's been on the comeback trail from a torn ACL. This injury happened at the 2011 European Championships just as she was at the peak of her abilities and was looking to dominate the competitive season. Though she staged a remarkable comeback, she wasn't able to restore all of her difficulty. In 2010, she was unbeatable in the all-around. In 2012, she needed mistakes from the top gymnasts to challenge for the gold. Undoubtedly, this frustrated the uber-competitive Mustafina.

In the Cold War era, the Soviet gymnasts were unquestionable foes because of their connection to Communism. The Russian gymnasts of today, however, cannot be so easily turned into enemies. So perhaps "diva" has become misogynistic shorthand for "rival."

NBC struck "diva" gold during the all-around as Mustafina, who, after she fell from the beam during her routine, brushed Alexandrov, her coach aside as she went to compose herself alone. They showed this twice. I wouldn't put it past them to turn it into a gif.

And I can't lay the blame for this characterization solely at NBC's feat. The gymnastics media — which is about as niche as you can get — has also gotten in on the "diva" action. In response to Mustafina's brush off, International Gymnast editor Dwight Normile wrote, "Super talented and probably a perfectionist, Mustafina has a lot of gymnastics left in her—if coach Alexander Alexandrov is willing to put up with her. Brushing him off after her blown beam routine in the all-around final crossed the line in a coach-gymnast relationship. I don't care how mad you are."

While Normile doesn't use the D-word, his publication used it earlier in the week on Facebook to describe her training demeanor without any sort of explanation, which left commenters angry and wondering why she had been so maligned. Did she demand better lighting? A different spot in the line-up? Or did she merely express negative emotions instead of adorable ones? Maybe after her fall, she didn't want a shoulder to cry on or a cookie. Getting mad was probably the reason she came back so strongly on her next apparatus and took the bronze.

Russian coaches like Alexandrov have grown accustomed to having larger-than-life personalities on their competitive rosters. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we've been able to learn more about the Russian women, who have proven to be an entertaining and dramatic lot. Svetlana Khorkina was perhaps the sports greatest diva. She emerged just a couple of years after the breakup of the USSR and quickly became known for her sultry floor routines and her outspoken outside of the gym. Khorkina was unabashedly competitive and when she failed to meet her own standards, she was forthcoming with her own frustration and anger.

Khorkina fully embraced the diva mantle. "I love being a diva," she said, "being a diva is magical. You can't catch her. She always comes out a winner."

Khorkina was not singular in her willingness to openly express her feelings on the mat. As gymnastics blogger Brigid McCarthy explains, it seems that Russians, in general, are more accepting of supposedly diva behavior. She writes, "I have asked many Russians I know and they say for Russians there are no negative attachments made to the expression of emotion. To be openly disappointed, angry, frustrated (with oneself, of course) is simply emotional honesty. It is more natural to wear your heart on your sleeve, to state your successes and failures, and to name your foe."

In many interviews before the Games, Russian star Viktoria Komova identified the American women as her chief rivals and expressed the desire to beat them. By contrast, the U.S. women merely spoke in platitudes about wishing to do their best and hit all of their routines (which of course they did and defeated everyone).

Ryan Lochte was open about his desire to defeat Phelps, the greatest American swimmer, and wasn't maligned for it. This is what we expect from elite male athletes—confidence, even cockiness, and the desire to win. Phelps is the best and it was only natural that his competitors would want to take him down. These guys weren't labeled as divas.

The women at this level, regardless of their age, are the same as the men. They don't want to simply do their best. They want to win. So why aren't they permitted to openly express this? And when they fail to meet their own high standards, why can their only negative reaction be tears?

After winning a team silver, one gold, and two bronzes, Mustafina finished her competition at the Olympics as the most decorated gymnast in London. NBC might not like "divas," but the judges seem to have no problem with them. Here's hoping that at the next Games, "diva" won't be hurled as an insult against any female athlete who has the gall to exhibit anything other than sadness or joy. They should be free to smile, cry — and even get angry every once in awhile.

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.

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.

Female Gymnasts Used to Compete on the Rings, But the Game Changed [Video]

Female Gymnasts Used to Compete on the Rings, But the Game ChangedWhen you tell folks that you've done gymnastics, most automatically ask you if you did the rings. No, I would explain. It's not one of the women's apparatuses. But why is it the men's and women's gymnastics can look like completely different sports? In all of the Olympic sports, women and men do not compete head-to-head, but the game's the same. The world record time for women in the 100 meter sprint might be a touch slower than the men's best times, but the race itself is identical. Why don't we get to do the rings?

First, a little refresher course in the different apparatuses in case you haven't spent the week glued to the Olympic gymnastics competition: The men compete on the floor exercise, pommel horse, rings, vault, parallel bars, and high bar. The women's four are vault, uneven bars, balance beam, and floor.

As you can see that the men and women only match up on two events — vault and floor, which are both tumbling/leg events. (We'll leave aside for now the fact that women perform to music and have dance requirements in addition to flipping.) While the remaining apparatuses obviously share similarities with one another — pommel horse and beam both require an inordinate amount of balance (though in the case of the pommels, the balancing takes place exclusively on the gymnast's hands), they do not make the same demands on the competitors. And while the uneven bars has evolved to become more like men's high bar, an event like rings has no equivalent in the women's program. None of the apparatuses demand static strength poses and holds from female gymnasts.

But was it always like this? Were the four events that we associate with women's gymnastics always the ones that were performed at the Olympic level since female gymnasts first competed at the Games in 1928?

Female Gymnasts Used to Compete on the Rings, But the Game Changed No. Back when women first joined the men at the highest level, the men's and women's apparatuses were still in flux and the women didn't compete for individual accolades, just in the team event. At those earliest Games, men competed in events that have since been discarded, such as the rope climb.

From FIG's website:

In 1936, the individual apparatus events for men consisted of free exercises (forerunner of 'floor'), rings, side (pommel) horse, parallel bars, horizontal bars, and long horse, a similar apparatus programme as compared to today. The women in 1936 competed individually, earning team points, showing both a compulsory and an optional exercise on parallel bars, balance beam, side horse vault, as well as in 2 optional team drills — one free hand and one with hand apparatus. In 1948, the women even competed in a compulsory exercise on the rings.

I spoke with Laddie Bakanic, 88, who had been a member of the 1948 U.S. women's gymnastics team that won a team bronze medal at the Olympics and performed on the "flying rings" as they were known in her day.

"When I was on the flying rings and I had to leave go I was scared cause there was nothing there but a cotton mat on the ground," she recalled, adding that there were male spotters hovering nearby just in case.

The paucity of proper safety equipment is part of the reason that gymnastics was much less acrobatic back in Bakanic's day. The rules were also quite cautious as a result. For instance, the balance beam that Bakanic competed on was a solid block of wood without the springs of today's apparatus, and she and her peers were not permitted to do flips on it.

"We were not allowed to do certain things, those back bends or even splits," she commented even though many had skills like handstands.

"Today you do anything that you can do," she said, noting the difference between her day and the present. (Well, that's mostly true. The sport's governing body has forbidden certain moves for women, such as roll-out tumbling skills that are now back in style on the men's side, because they're considered dangerous. Also, certain risky elements have been awarded very low score rating in order to discourage their widespread adoption, such as a one-arm giant swing on the uneven bars. Though this skill is often performed by the men on high bar, when Liu Xuan of China became the first woman to compete one and connect it to a release move, it was given an absurdly low difficulty mark. As a result, it hasn't been attempted since.)

Female Gymnasts Used to Compete on the Rings, But the Game Changed Bakanic noted that while she was a gymnast at the Sokol School in New York, she practiced on both the uneven bars and the parallel ones, which are now exclusively a men's event.

Bakanic retired after her medal winning performance in 1948 and doesn't know why p-bars or flying rings or hand apparatuses were dropped for the women. (The hand apparatuses, such as ribbons and balls, later end up becoming their own discipline, the sport of rhythmic gymnastics.) But it seems that during the four years after Bakanic stopped competing, women's gymnastics completed its evolution into the sport most of recognize, with competition only on vault, uneven bars, balance beam, and floor exercise.

1952 was a watershed year in the sport. It was the first time female gymnasts were allowed to vie for individual honors as well as team medals at the Olympic Games. From that point forward, the women's apparatuses no longer seemed to be in flux. Gymnasts like Hungary's Agnes Keleti, a Holocaust survivor, and the USSR's Larisa Latynina, whose medal record was just shattered by Michael Phelps, were amongst the sports first female individual champions.

While it's hard to track down information on this primitive era, very informed speculation suggests that it was a combination of women's physical attributes and gender norms that contributed to the apparatus selection.

The women were given the danciest of events. As Bakanic noted, during the early days of the balance beam, the gymnasts were not doing flips. They were doing turns, balancing poses, and later, leaps — stuff taken right out of ballet classes. In fact, many of the early champion such as Latynina began their careers as dancers.

And though the women performed on the same floor exercise that the men performed on — meaning thin mats spread out over hard, unforgiving surfaces — the ladies alone were tasked with dancing to music.

It wasn't just the equipment that was different in the 40s and 50s. The athletes' bodies were also unlike how they are now. Back then, the athletes were older, post-pubescent women, not the slight teenagers that we've become accustomed to seeing in the post-Olga Korbut era. Their bodies were not ideal for some of the acrobatics that the men were starting to perform. With a heavier lower half, skills like giant swings would be extremely difficult and tiring. And the sport's early rule makers probably couldn't imagine a time when young teenage girls whose bodies were relatively curveless would be competing. They probably never thought that the women would start approaching the men's difficulty levels.

Female Gymnasts Used to Compete on the Rings, But the Game Changed This is likely the reason that they were tasked with performing on the uneven bars, which at first were really just a modified set of parallel bars, created by raising one of two rails to its highest setting. The advantages of the early uneven bars over the high bar is that it allowed the competitor to briefly pause, rest her lower body on the bottom rung while grasping the top. Also, in the early days the emphasis was not on swinging or fast twitch movements. Gymnasts often competed static balance poses on the event.

Female Gymnasts Used to Compete on the Rings, But the Game Changed The uneven bars only took a giant leap forward in 1966 when American Doris Fuchs-Brause performed a revolutionary routine that involved quick turns and bar changes. Sadly, like many trendsetters, she wasn't rewarded for her work and failed to qualify to the event finals at the world championships.

Today's female gymnasts would have no problem competing on the high bar. It is now common anyway to practice on a single rail anyway to master giant swings and release moves. In fact, many taller gymnasts would probably love to not have to worry about bending their bodies in half on swings to clear the lower rail.

The rings have also changed from the apparatus that Bakanic competed on in '48. In the past, the point was to pick up swing, which would've been easier for women to do. Nowadays, they're called the still rings and the emphasis is keeping the wires as motionless as possible as you move from one strength part to another. This was probably viewed as impossible for women's relatively weaker upper bodies.

In fact, three of the four events the women compete on are "jumping" or leg events. While beam tests balance too, the skills done on the four-inch wide plank are tumbling in nature. This explains why you have gymnasts like Aly Raisman, who is exceptional on beam, floor, and vault, but fairly weak on the uneven bars. The first three draw on a similar skill and strength set. Bars, however, is completely different.

Bakanic has enjoyed watching gymnastics evolve as it has and grow in global popularity. And she is astounded by what today's female gymnasts can do.

"They're unbelievable," she said.

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.

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.

Saturday, 4 August 2012

Why Do Some Dudes Assume All Their Female Friends Want to Bang Them? [Genderal Interest]

Why Do Some Dudes Assume All Their Female Friends Want to Bang Them?Of course men and women can be friends. In 2012, the claim that sex will always get in the way comes across as antiquated and essentialist; our hopes and our ideological convictions about gender leave us believing that platonic friendship between guys and gals is — absolutely — possible. But while our lived experience tells us that men and women can be friends, recent research suggests that these relationships are neither as common nor as easy to find as most of us would like. Based on recent research, the question we need to start asking isn't "can men and women be friends" but rather "how can we better equip dudes to handle non-sexual friendship with the ladies?"

As Doug Barry discussed previously, a new study suggests the obvious: men are the ones who have the harder time with boundaries in opposite-sex friendships. In Benefit or Burden: Attraction in Cross-Sex Friendship, April Bleske-Rechek and her team of researchers found that men are much more likely to be sexually attracted to their female friends than vice-versa. Both men and women reported that desire was a "cost more often than a benefit," with the sad potential to bring "potential negative consequences for individuals' long-term mateships."

One problem with the study shows up in the first sentence of the abstract which declares that "cross-sex friendships are an historically recent phenomenon." That's not entirely true. As Jodi Bilinkoff argued in her landmark 2005 study, medieval Catholic priests and wealthy female penitents often developed nonsexual "deep friendships" around the sacrament of confession. Theologian Dan Brennan has documented a long history of cross-sex friendship in the church in Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions: Engaging the Mystery of Friendship Between Men and Women. Simply put, it's a massive over-simplification to suggest that friendships between men and women were unheard of until our modern world. (As an aside, it's worth noting that lead investigator Bleske-Rechek once compared trusting a romantic partner's platonic friendship to the risks of letting "your teenage daughter go to a concert dressed like a slut.")

Whatever the study's shortcomings, it does seem to bear out that Harry was at least partly right when he told Sally that sex would always get in the way of male-female friendship. But as the study itself makes clear, the problem that destroys friendship isn't the physiological reality of sexual attraction, but rather the inability (or refusal) of so many straight men to believe that their female buddies aren't secretly crushing on them. In other words, the problem isn't that guys are totally overwhelmed by the hornies whenever they get in close proximity to a female friend. The problem is that men misunderstand women's intentions for wanting friendship, falsely assuming that ladies only want "one thing."

FMK is a fun meme. If you're not familiar, it involves taking 3 or more dudes (like the Romney sons or the Game of Thrones cast) and deciding which one you'd most like to fuck, which one you'd be most likely to marry, and which one you'd most want to kill. These debates are great for procrastinators, but no one here seriously believes that the longings to "fuck," "marry," and "kill" constitute the sum total of women's desires. The problem (and the blame certainly doesn't fall on the FMK meme) is that a great many men do labor under the delusion that women have no interest in being "just friends" with guys. If you're smiling at me over coffee, you must want to fuck me and have my babies –- or so more than a few dudes conclude. For them, FMK isn't a joke, but a plausibly accurate reflection of women's chief feelings about men.

The problem isn't just, as the Bleske-Rechek study shows, that men wildly overestimate their female buddies' sexual interest. It's that they also undervalue their own worth as friends. In a world where we still cling to the belief that women are naturally more intuitive and verbally adept than men, many guys assume that if a woman wants a non-sexual friendship, she'll naturally choose from the ranks of those who "do" friendship well: other women. The idea that a straight woman might want to be close to them without wanting to fuck or marry strikes them as utterly implausible. As a result, men do two things at once: they overrate their own sexual irresistibility and depreciate everything else they might have to offer. Little wonder, then, that so many dudes wrongly assume that their lady friends are crushing on them.

So what can we do to better equip guys to be "just friends" with the women in their lives? For starters, we can debunk once and for all the myth that sexual desire makes friendship impossible. The traditional reasoning is that male-female platonic relationships only work when neither friend is ever attracted to the other. Given how fluid and surprising desire can be, those friendships where lust never appears for even an instant are going to be relatively rare. But this reasoning overstates the power of sexual attraction to drown out everything else. As this new study makes clear, it's not that women are never attracted to their male buddies. It's that women are probably better acculturated to put lust aside for the sake of a friendship.

As Juliet Lapidos wrote at Slate, a close examination of the existing research shows that "sexual feeling within friendship exists on a Kinsey-type scale, and moderate attraction does not necessarily ruin or invalidate the relationship." While it's difficult to quantify "moderate attraction" in a universally applicable way, it's fair to assume that the occasional fantasy about wanting to bone your buddy doesn't mean that your friendship is founded on a lie. No one's sex drive –- not even young men's –- is so powerful that it must always trump any possibility of enduring friendship.

In the long run, what will most help adult cross-sex friendships to thrive is a culture that encourages children and teens to develop close and enduring platonic bonds. In Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men sociologist Michael Kimmel offers compelling evidence that boys who grow up with close female friends are demonstrably less likely to engage in destructive behavior. Friendships with girls not only provide young boys with a kind of inoculation against sexist cruelty, they set boys up to see their female peers as complete human beings. Alas, too many adults undermine cross-sex children's cross-sex friendships, often by asking little Joey teasingly if little Emma is his "girlfriend."

The more we encourage non-romantic, non-sexualized relationships between boys and girls, the better we equip kids to have great platonic friendships as adults. Guys who grow up with girl buddies are less likely to assume that an eagerness to spend time together is proof of a secret crush. Boys who grow up liking and being liked by girls will almost certainly be better prepared to handle the inevitable ambiguities that come with any relationship. And presumably, they'll be a lot less inclined to imagine that their female friends just want to fuck -– or marry –- them.


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.

Thursday, 2 August 2012

Teenage Girls Have an Excellent Question: Why Hasn't There Been a Female Presidential Debate Moderator in Decades? [2012 Election]

Teenage Girls Have an Excellent Question: Why Hasn't There Been a Female Presidential Debate Moderator in Decades?A woman hasn't moderated a general-election presidential debate since 1992, but three teenage girls from New Jersey are hoping to change that. Last Tuesday, Emma, Sammi, and Elena stormed into the Washington headquarters of the Commission on Presidential Debates with 118,000 signatures backing up their petition for a woman moderator.

"It's necessary that our country sees a woman in this prominent position, being visible on the political stage, asking the questions," 16-year-old Elena Tsemberis told The Daily Beast. "A female moderator would be able to add a new perspective to the debates and touch on topics that are salient for women in this country, like reproductive rights, inequality in the workplace, and how the economy impacts women and their families."

But that's exactly why candidates don't want to shake things up with a woman moderator: old, boring white guys are somewhat exalted in our country and therefore won't remind voters to press Obama and Romney on complicated issues. Maybe that's why the debate commission has completely ignored the girls (and all media requests for comment) thus far; on Tuesday, the teens and their petition were kicked out by building security.

However, debate expert Allan Louden points out that it would make Romney look fantastic if he changed the status quo by suggesting a woman should moderate:

Romney should call for PBS's Gwen Ifill to moderate, suggests Louden. As a black woman, Ifill would of course be "a statement," he says. But because she's a veteran of multiple vice-presidential debates, he adds, she offers much of the security of the status quo. "She's predictable. She's heavily researched. She has a track record."

Just think of what would happen if Romney came out and said, "I'm for her," posits Louden. As political moves go, he notes, it would be "marvelous."

Oh god. Please, Obama, pick a woman moderator first. Then you can sit back and watch Romney awkwardly try to explain how he feels about the Fair Pay Act.

Teenage Girls on Quest for Woman Moderator of Presidential Debates [Daily Beast]


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.

Clever Female Spiders Use ‘Mating Plugs’ to Thwart Unwanted Sex [Science]

Clever Female Spiders Use â??Mating Plugsâ?? to Thwart Unwanted SexNew research has disabused Spider scientists (technical term, I assure you) at the Smithsonian of a long-standing misconception that males of the "highly sexually dimorphic and polygamous" wink, wink, nudge, nudge giant wood spider persuasion would sever their own genitals during copulation with a female spider to create a "plug" so that no rivals could subsequently mate with her. That, as it turns out, isn't where such plugs come from — female spiders produce the plugs to keep unwanted males away from their nether regions.

Giant wood spiders — Nephila pilipes for all you people who didn't conflate Latin class with afternoon nap — are very sexually active. A lot of small male spiders compete with each other for the chance to mate with only a few really big female spiders, so biologists had initially figured that the plugs were some sort of adaptation the males had developed in order to gain a paternity advantage. During a new series of staged laboratory mating trials, however, researchers realized that no plugs were formed during mating. Instead, female spiders exposed to a lot a males eventually developed "amorphous plugs" while they were laying eggs, thus giving them the ability to avoid sexual conflict by preventing unwanted male spiders from mating with them.

Biologists Discover Female Spiders Produce Mating Plugs to Prevent Unwanted Sex from Males [ScienceDaily]

Image via Gwoeii/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.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

So How Much of An Impact Will Saudi's Female Olympians Have On Gender Equality? Apparently Not a Lot [Olympics]

So How Much of An Impact Will Saudi's Female Olympians Have On Gender Equality? Apparently Not a LotSaudi Arabia's decision to send women to the London Olympics for the first time this year lasted right up to the wire vis a vis ongoing talks with the International Olympic Committee, finally reaching the decision to the affirmative just two weeks ago. It was only to be expected that the first sight of Saudi Arabian female Olympians, Wojdan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shaherkani and Sarah Attar, marching behind the nation's men during the opening ceremony of the games, would spark a rabid and polarizing Twitter war. The conservative half posted under a hashtag that would translate in English to #Olympic_Whores.

One should not hesitate to describe their participation as shameful and a great sin.

Whores of the Olympics...They want to run so that they intentionally fall down and reveal (their figures).

But supporters immediately infiltrated the hashtag to voice their pride in Shaherkani and Attar, one of whom asserted that it was a step in the right direction: "Next we'll be carrying the flag and walking side by side, equal." The movement is, in fact, part of a larger, tentative movement to give women more of a voice that has been going on under the reign of King Abdullah, known as a reformer: last year plans were launched to allow women to vote in municipal council elections and join the consultative council, and some of the clerics under Abdullah who criticized these reform plans have been fired for it.

The technical aspects and seeming minutia of the women's participation in the Games is being played by ear; while a Saudi official said that the women would be wearing hijabs or Islamic headscarves at all times, the International Judo Federation informed the press on Thursday that Shaherkani would have to fight without a head-covering to observe "the principle and spirit of judo."

But experts are downplaying the historical event; while gladly admitting it does set a precedent, Isobel Coleman, a senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations, says "I wouldn't call it a major breakthrough. The decision to allow women to participate was fought by religious conservatives. It will not lead to any wholesale changes anytime soon."

Adds Christoph Wilcke, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, in slightly blunter terms:

It probably means very little. It is unlikely that the Saudi government or the Saudi sporting authorities of their own volition will make changes inside the country as a result of sending two women to the Olympics... "Everything in Saudi Arabia takes a long, long time. What I think this participation does is break a taboo and break a barrier, but I don't think that will lead to concrete changes led by the Saudi government.

What they do think the decision will accomplish, however, is the slow and gradual participation of more everyday Saudi Arabian women in athletics, which is good.

'Saudi Women's Olympics Debut 'Means Very Little' for Gender Equality, Experts Say' [US News]
'Olympics-Saudi women's Olympic march draws praise, blame' [Reuters]


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.