The Driving Force of Anonymity

It was the perfect day to get an early afternoon buzz going. The October weather blessed the state of Florida with clear, bright skies and a cool, calming breeze. A friend and I were enjoying the salty air blowing off the bay as we sipped overpriced mimosas and nibbled on Brie and calamari. It was a gorgeous, soothing kind of day where you shouldn’t have a care in the world.

Too antagonistic to just revel in our bliss, our conversation turned (quite heatedly) to traffic; Florida drivers in particular. After a few minutes of discussing how much we despised other drivers, I began to reflect on a recent trip that had gotten under my skin. A few days prior, while running late for school, it felt like every driver on the road was against me. Everyone seemed to be cruising at 5 under the speed limit, while simultaneously boxing me in, so I couldn’t break away.

After 10 minutes of screaming at people who couldn’t hear me, I had a bit of a (non-drunken) revelation. I took a step back, and thought, ‘maybe you are the asshole.’ I was the one who was weaving through traffic and cutting people off, but with the anonymity my car provided, I felt comfortable throwing social decency and self-accountability out the window. In my own mind, I had turned the normal, safe driver into a dick.

From this thought, I expanded the idea to all the knee-jerk reactions we come to about other drivers. It seems every city/state/country believes they have the worst drivers in the world, but do all people suck at driving, or is traffic a collection of small human errors in rapid-fire form? Everyone has nearly taken a wrong turn, swerved because of a distraction, or waited too long to move after a light turned green, but everyone I drive with comes to the same conclusion: one mistake makes you an asshole driver.

The more we discussed the topic of anonymity, the more I realized it’s not just a problem with driving. So many components of our lives involve little direct interaction with other people. So, I began to wonder, as our worlds become smaller, with walls built by ourselves, society, and careers, does the patience and acceptance for human error exist in the anonymous, give-it-to-me-now world of today?

The Internet is an obvious example. Discussion boards and comment sections are filled with loud, obnoxious opinions that are rarely backed by anything but pure emotion. Even intelligent people can be intolerable. I’ve read some insightful counter arguments that were brushed off because of grammar or spelling errors. Online, there is no such thing as social decency. We hide behind our computer screens, so if we don’t like what we hear, we can resort to name-calling to prove our point.

In a face-to-face debate, there must be a level of respect if there is to be any headway in the topic, but with the Internet, people are able to say whatever comes to mind without any filter or immediate feedback. People are essentially arguing with themselves online while breaking down others for not being clear and precise the first time.

The way business is run today doesn’t help either. Many careers and jobs have been divided into niche categories that never truly communicate with each other. Yet, the amount of shit I hear different sectors talk about each other is ridiculous.

I’ve worked in the restaurant industry for seven years now, and had my fair share of this experience. Whenever I worked at a place that lacked communication between front and back of house, service became a giant blame-game. The servers hated hosts for over- or under-seating them, bussers moved too slowly for management, and the kitchen and wait staff were always at each other’s throats. Without communication, everyone in the restaurant was a fuck-up, except the individual thinking it.

Whether it was human error, or the luck of the draw, no one wanted to give each other a break. It was easier to say all the hosts sucked, as opposed to considering the flow of customers. Why take into account that the bussers were also playing food runners when there is a table that needs to be cleared? And why try to take a moment to reestablish the delicate balance of tickets and delivery time of food, when it can be everyone else’s fault?

Customers are no help either. While a good percent of people can be understanding, there is a solid customer base that has no sympathy for the circumstances surrounding them. In a packed restaurant, many can’t seem to put two and two together. In the chaos, things get overlooked and sometimes lost. No one is out to ruin the customer’s experience, but there are hiccups in the system that any normal person can make.

I chose to highlight what I know best, but when I hear friends and family complain about their own jobs, I hear the same tune. Insurance companies, retail, the tech-industry, etc., all seem to lack consideration for human error, especially when different departments never meet face-to-face.

So, again, I pose the question: is there room for human error today, or have we become a hypocritical culture that can’t except that everyone, including ourselves, makes mistakes? Are we are losing the human experience to selfish necessities and demands? It sure seems so.

“After the first glass, you see things as you wish they were. After the second, you see things as they are not. Finally, you see things as they really are, and that is the most horrible thing in the world.”

― Oscar Wilde

Prayer Hotlines

Somewhere around 3am, I drunkenly stumbled through my front door. My brain told me to turn on the kitchen light, so I could navigate the minefield that was my studio apartment, but my feet were confident in maneuvering through the piles of clothes and papers scattered across my floor. After nearly breaking my neck 3 times, I then proceeded to fall into bed.

Merely drunk, not tired, I turned to my favorite herbal remedy and clicked on the television. The blinding blue light revealed the only form of entertainment one who pays $30 a month for internet and cable could come across at 3am, local pastors and their prayer hotlines. My excitement only amplified when I realized the reason the screen was shining so exponentially blue, was that the plump, 50-something year old woman sitting behind the desk was wearing a jean jacket with a jean shirt (I could only assume she completed the outfit with a pair of jeans I was unable to see.) Then, like a gift from god, she began speaking in tongues. This was the perfect way for me to end the night, drinks and a show.

There were a few callers that affected me, but the majority were about stupid things like injuries that wouldn’t heal or some unpaid debt. It was at this point my mind began to reflect on a new idea about this type of prayer. If god does exist, and he/she doesn’t answer prayers the first thousand times, does it become stalker-ish to start using other people’s “prayer lines” to attempt to communicate?

I couldn’t help but make comparisons to some psycho exes my friends have dealt with. When these crazy exes were desperate for contact, their solution was to call from any phone they could get their hands on until they got all their friends blocked from their former partner’s phone. I remember when my ex’s ex stalked our relationship. For three years, he received calls from an endless amount of numbers that always had her voice on the other end. Even though he proceeded to ignore her, she somehow formulated in her mind that the message just wasn’t getting through, and by calling from a different number, what she had to say would have a greater impact.

I am aware of the fact that there are many variables to this topic. One’s understanding of god determines the way they pray, but I just found humor in the fact that there were people thoroughly convinced that a jean clad pastor rambling nonsense could somehow be a better messenger to the creator of the universe. The all powerful just didn’t receive any of the messages left for them.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I am an atheist (I hate that fucking word.) I wonder sometimes, if I were religious, perhaps I would have an answer to this question. There are things religious people do that I will never, in a million years, understand. Human emotion is almost always irrational and we hold on tightly to small things to comfort us. But this is one of those comforts that make no sense to someone ruled by logic. Some choose to pray away their problems, I prefer to drink.

“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

― Benjamin Franklin

I Heart Alcohol

I’m a bit of a cynic. I genuinely dislike most of the general population. I feel like it stems from the idea that we can never truly know a person in a broad social setting. Most of our interactions are faked on the basis of social politeness. It can take a lifetime to truly understand the inner workings of another human being, and even then, there are things everyone is afraid to say out loud. But I like to take the easy route, get um’ drunk.

I’ve always preferred to converse with my fellow man wasted, not because they are more intelligent, or gracious, or even nice; but because with a few beers, one can absorb a person’s entire life philosophy in one night. You will never learn more truths about the person sitting in front of you than when they are drunk.

Every drink peels back a carefully crafted layer of a person’s social identity, until self-censorship is no longer an option. Loves and fears and hates will bubble over; it is some of the most beautiful, eye-opening, messy, honest conversation you will ever have.

Without the aid of alcohol, many of the outside opinions I’ve let influence my life would have never seen the light of day. When heavily drinking with someone, there is some sort of mutual agreement that things might get deep and ugly. Every sip is a step closer to knowing the dark secrets people hide. There are monsters that dance behind every individual’s eyes, begging for their masters to let them escape through their host’s lips. All it takes is one more glass of wine and the right topic of conversation.

Alcohol shows the best and worst of humanity and it upsets me that people no longer worship it like in the old days. Empires had gods dedicated to the drink. So my fellow human, next time you are out, for me, raise your glass to the beauty of alcohol! My brothers, my sisters; let us learn the way the world really thinks and celebrate being loud, crude, and blunt about it!

To Alcohol! Human kind’s kryptonite! The savior and destroyer of personal ideologies! The shortcut to truly knowing each other.

 

“I drink to make other people more interesting.”

― Ernest Hemingway

Consensus by Anecdote

I’ve participated in a lot of drunken debates, and there’s one go-to defense that always sticks in my craw: the fallacy my mother calls “consensus by anecdote,” or when the exception trumps the rule. When it comes to the most sensitive topic discussions, why do people try to undermine a rule with the exception? The one-time variable can become the driving force behind a person’s opinion, and the sweeping generalizations that come from this thought process drives me crazy.

I finally snapped and had to rant about the fallacy when I began research for my Feminism vs. Sexism series. Every time I read an article about women’s issues, there was at least one guy in the comment section that felt the need to use a counter point of “this happened to me” or “men are exploited too” or “women are jealous and/or sluts looking for attention.” Here are three examples I found in the span of 20 minutes:

Essays about women creepily being told to smile:

“So what should i make of women who have met me in the subway and said ‘i like a man in a suit’ this double standard that women can be sexually aggressive and nothing is wrong with it goes to show you the same entitlement that you seem to suggest men have…”

Articles about women being objectified:

“I rarely hear any complaints from attractive women when I tell them they are attractive. It's usually the not-so-attractive women who complain about men objectifying women when I compliment a woman's attractiveness. ”

Pieces about sexual harassment in the work place:

“Do women ever use sex to get what they want? What are the charges for that? If you want respect, act respectable.”

While it is true men can be objectified and human beings enjoy attention from each other, it is a laughable concept to believe men face anywhere near the same discrimination as women. It is equivalent to a white person trying to compare the plight of whites to blacks.

This kind of reasoning doesn’t just apply to sexism and racism either; it can be applied to all spectrums of debate discussions. I’ve conversed with many people who used the minority opinion or distorted facts to justify or confirm the “gay agenda,” alternative medicine, not vaccinating children, gun control, global warming, and/or essentially all political or religious beliefs held close by someone. Some of the “facts” I hear are nothing more than here-say or flat out lies (I’m looking at you anti-vaccination parents).

A does not equal B, if A is the fucking variable. If I have to hear one more argument –  how someone knows a person on welfare who is lazy, so all poor people are lazy; how there is one story about a woman who used abortion as birth control, so that means all women will; how your one black friend speaks for the entire population – I am going to scream.  In an age where a person needs to do Internet research to confirm a news story, how does one miracle example trump the obvious problem in many debates?

People from all walks of life enjoy living in the dark, and it always seems to involve anything that stands to exclude, define, control, manipulate, or profit off the individual. This should be a huge red flag, but the more sensitive the topic, the less likely someone is to be persuaded by facts. This fact has been somewhat proven in multiple studies. (There are a few inconsistent variables in the math and political belief study.) Why can people be so afraid of introducing a new idea into their belief system?

The psychology behind ignoring facts fascinates me, especially when the masses follow suit. The 24-hour news networks are a great example of the exception trumps rule issue. They have become nothing more than a source fueling “Talking Head” drones that run around screaming their favorite pundit’s opinion. FOX News, the master of propaganda, has turned this into an art form that I must admit, I respect to a degree. No one is quite able to produce mindless clones like this network. There is no second-guessing if someone exclusively watches FOX News. It is like speaking to a walking fact sheet of O'Reilly and Hannity bullet points. It is the same diluted facts spit out over and over again, and the moment a new, unfamiliar idea is introduced, then they revert to the FOX panic button mode of, “if I scream louder than you, I win.”I’ve noticed that anyone who needs to ramble aimlessly about a sensitive issue is typically trying to justify a strong bias they hold with only facts that contribute to their argument.

After thousands of years of humans playing sheep and following each other off a cliff, how have we not learned how to properly rationalize information? Obviously, we have to stop yelling at each other first (no one likes to feel lectured or stupid), but if we ever make it past the first step of artful debate, what is the next step? If we, as a species, have moved on to social evolution, how have we not evolved past taking sketchy, manipulative sources at their word?

The only time I really felt like I made an impact on an important issue with an opponent was when it came to gun control. After about a half hour, I stopped the conversation and asked the guy one simple question: stripping away all the facts on gun control, do you believe America has a problem with people being killed by guns? Even as an avid fan of guns, the only answer he could come up with was yes. Only when I subtracted the dramatic stories and overwhelming facts did we come to a mutual agreement.

Can the answer really be that basic? Do we put too much information on the table and forget the fundamental question that started the debate in the first place? And why have we not socially evolved to answer and focus on the first question on our own? I ask so many questions with so little answers, but I guess that is the fun of a philosophy blog.

“Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.”

― W.C. Fields

Feminism vs. Sexism: Violence Between Sexes

This piece fits in the social stigmas category I wrote about last time, but I think it is important enough to get its own post.

Let’s get this out of the way: men are biologically stronger than women. In my opinion, the stereotypes that are associated with this fact are the root of all evil in the battle of the sexes. It leads to the sexes being pigeonholed in American culture.

To understand how I began harping on the topic of physical strength, I am going to admit to something very embarrassing: I watch the Steve Wilkos Show…sometimes multiple times a day. (I know, shut up.) I feel like there is one pattern I’ve noticed about the show every time I watch it: when a woman claims physical abuse, the audience automatically demonizes the man, but when a man claims abuse, the audience laughs. Every. Single. Time.

This laughter represents America’s fundamental problem of violence between the sexes. No one would dare laugh at a woman who was abused, no matter what the size of her abuser, but it becomes funny when a woman is the violent one.

When I began to mentally keep track of reasons women hit men, I realized the frequency at which it occurred. I became less and less interested whether the violence was justified, and I began questioning the frequency of it instead.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010, “more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.” Even though I watch the Steve Wilkos Show as often as I do, I was surprised by these findings. I couldn’t shake the question of why women were so violent today.

Putting together the frequency of violence against men from my daytime TV research and actual research, I came to two ideas about how the sexes are viewed: 1) violent women are thought of as a joke, not dangerous, and 2) men should be ashamed and embarrassed about abuse instead of being open about it. There is this idea that men should always be the protector and women the victim.

Our society tries to teach men to never hit a woman, but there doesn’t seem to be any movement telling women it is not okay to hit men. It seems we are a society that preaches that violence against men is most likely justified, and even if it is not, it is just a woman throwing punches.

One example is the dramatic Hollywood slap. Since the beginning of film, the connection of a woman’s palm and a man’s face has gotten a lot of screen time. Think of any romantic comedy. How many times have you sat in a theater and watched the not-yet-changed, playboy antagonist get drinks thrown in his face, hit, or even maced? In a way, our society has told women it is okay to hit men, and they are.

Hollywood even tells us that women who are truly in love will get violent out of frustration, and it’s cute. In The Notebook, how many times did Rachel McAdams slap Ryan Gosling over something ridiculously stupid, only for them to make up with butterfly kisses 30 seconds later? If any movie or book portrayed a man doing this, he would be an abusive asshole, but was Rachel’s character depicted as this? Nope, she was just young, passionate and in love.

There is a double standard with violence between men and women that hurts both sexes. This is just another example of the human race representing a giant metaphor of a snake eating it’s own tale. We are the cause, victim, and solution to the problems that plague both sexes. The answer is as simple as what our teachers told us in grade school – Everyone! Keep your damn hands to yourself!

“We were not a hugging people. In terms of emotional comfort it was our belief that no amount of physical contact could match the healing powers of a well made cocktail.”

- David Sedaris, Naked

Feminism vs. Sexism: Modern Gender Stigmas

In my last post, I wrote about sexualizing women. For part two I wanted to examine the sexes in a social context. There is no questioning it: the sexes are in a self-imposed, never-ending war over what defines a man and a woman. Men have always been the ones to outline gender roles for both sexes, and the American people have all fallen for it.

I see so many females fight for women who step outside of what society deems as feminine, but so few come to the rescue of men who attempt the same. Whether it is the way men dress, career choice, or even going as far as sexual exploration, in modern times, women have always had a louder cheering section.

Now, I would like all to understand, I know why the cheering section is louder and gets more attention: it is because the oppressed finally have a voice. The reason for this sensitivity to feminist issues is because of deep-rooted scars and continuing practices. Do women in America have it better than 100 years ago? Fuck yeah, but just because women slowly gained freedoms, like the right to vote, does not make this a country of equality.

There is a new battle raging against sexism. As much as I would like to tell men to go fuck themselves and the sexism they face, I can’t. (I’ve been a bit bitter since being felt up at two separate bars.) Fighting for true equality means focusing on both sexes, not just one. The line between what is masculine and feminine needs to be blurred beyond recognition if women want society to look past sex. Here are the four social stigmas I feel are the most important:

1)   Accepting the Metrosexual

I have an extreme dislike of metrosexual men. They are not sexually appealing to me. I think most of them are douchebags, and I hate any man that spends more time looking in the mirror than a woman. Now, that being said, everything I just stated was extremely sexist and stereotyping.

It has been embedded in our culture to make fun of “girly” men, but do people ever consider that this is one way of perpetuating the gender stereotypes? By people mocking men who indulge in “manscaping,” they are essentially calling them women. This comes with a repercussion I think few realize.

This is how I see it: women are oppressed because they are weak. When a man is mocked for being “girly,” the real insult is not that he is acting like a woman, but that he is weak. It is a cycle of belittling women and limiting the definition of a “real man” to societal standards. I always thought that it was an unfair advantage that women got to wear make-up anyway.

2)   Bisexual Females vs. Males

I have a theory: The only reason women are so “comfortable” with their sexuality is because throughout history they had little-to-no say on the definition of beauty. Of course, women will feel comfortable with semi-nude females, when from Roman to modern times the female body has been considered a marketing tool by those who govern (cough, cough, men).
Everywhere from courthouse steps to magazine spreads, women have been desensitized to their own sexuality. Men, on the other hand, never had to be reminded of their own penis at every turn. 

Humans are like every other animal on the planet. There is a natural curiosity when it comes to sex. Many of us have fantasized about a homosexual encounter but never acted on it. In America, there is still a lingering homophobia that tells men they are flat out gay for thinking of another man in that way. Women on the other hand, have had a different kind of experience. A lesbian encounter has become many men’s fantasy and has been labeled a silly little experiment in college.

I believe this type of thinking has led to some dumb theories. I have met more then one straight man who said he believed homosexuality was wrong, but two women hooking up was natural. This is what happens when you repress a society: the repercussions are idiotic. Look at churches and the spree of molestation that has occurred, or the Amish community that won’t even acknowledge the drugging and raping of hundreds in their town. When society tries to suppress a natural urge, it will literally drive people crazy.

In a man’s world, females have had more room to experiment because it is thought of as sexy, but men have been conditioned to fear the sight of another’s dick. I remember even in high school, if a guy was bisexual, everyone knew and that kid became a freak even more so than someone who was gay. A chorus of “ewwws” would erupt from everyone whenever the bi-male was the main focus of gossip. It became a death sentence to a guy’s social reputation. Girls shunned him, and boys would bully him. (Girls had their fair share of discrimination, but I’m trying to make a point.) 

Even as someone who fights for LGBT rights, I find myself a bit taken back if I find out a guy I’m interested in is bisexual. I see nothing wrong with experimenting, but it comes as a shock. The past is the past, no matter whom someone has slept with, but it proves that no matter how open-minded I try to be, social stigmas can stick with me, and I think many are in the same boat. Without acceptance on every level, equality cannot be achieved. 

3)   Who Wears the Pants?

I hate this question. It implies old school thinking in the way of gender roles. I’m not referring to a significant other who does whatever the other says; I’m talking about career choice and income.

Men who stay home or are employed in what is considered “traditional careers for women” have had their fair share of discrimination. While it is nothing like what women have put up with, it does exist. 

This is another indirect form of sustaining sexism towards women. If a man chooses to be a secretary while the woman is a lawyer, there is a societal indication weakness. In America, it appears that men who have a less “manly” job are the butt of many jokes.

Hollywood is a great example of this. When there are men onscreen playing a character in a “woman’s position,” he is typically a bumbling idiot who is made fun of. When I think of male nurses, I think of “Meet the Parents” and how many career jokes were made. When I think of male secretaries, I think of the flamboyant, nervous wreck that catered to Ari in “Entourage.”

Stay at home dads get the privilege of being mocked as well. While many men like to complain about how commercials portray men as idiots who can’t understand how a broom works, these men actually live a lifestyle that is only advertised to women.

Again, I believe this is a side effect of sexism. Advertisers have always appealed to women in one distinct way: make the guy an idiot in the “woman’s domain.” I see it as men throwing women a bone in the idea of self-empowerment. Thank god the woman is in the kitchen, otherwise we would only have stupid men to clean up messes.

Being a house-husband comes with another weird side effect: they get called heroes and babysitters. They can never be seen as just a dad. It is just not normal in society today for men to stay at home with the kids. People make it an awkward or selfless, heroic situation, and unless we see an equal amount of men and women staying home, men will always have the upper hand in the workplace.

This problem, I believe, is currently not as much of an issue. Society is adapting to the new workforce, whether all are ready or not. And in this economy, I’d prefer to be a male secretary or let my wife pay the bills to flipping burgers at McDonald’s.

Women have been wearing pants for a few decades now. Can we update the “who wears the pants” question to something that doesn’t imply de-masculinizing men and keeping women in the kitchen?

4)   Who Pays the Bills?

Another stigma sexism creates is the belief that men need to spend money to be considered a good partner. This idea is not as prevalent as it once was, but it is there. I believe this thought has been passed down from mother to daughter (intentionally or not) for generations and is still being pushed by society. Throughout most of history, the only thing a woman was meant to be was suitable arm candy for her husband, so of course money mattered. If a woman couldn’t create her own accomplishments, her husband sure as hell better be rich! Even though times are changing, it doesn’t mean attitudes have.

Just like women have to be accepted in the work place, men have to be accepted as more than a wallet. Not all women think this way, but there are different angles to this statement than a guy paying a girl’s rent.

Here is one example: Unless otherwise specified, the default setting for who pays for a date always seems to be the guy. Even if 100 percent of women don’t think this way, our actions are apparently saying something else. I’ve known more than one guy who has not asked a girl out because he was short on cash.

I’ve always heard the saying, “a single man, is a rich man,” but it took me stepping into the real world to see that women actually do use men for money on a regular basis.  I’ve known a multitude of women who accepted a first date for the free meal because they were broke. While this is a great survival tool, it’s not doing much for women in the way of progression.

There is a flipside though, men have to learn to let a woman pay. I’ve always been someone who pays for my own drinks and will buy them for a love interest, but on more than one occasion, I felt that I somehow offended the guy by doing this. They stutter and stare in awe when I say, “I got this.”

When a man doesn’t pay, he is considered a loser. When a woman pays, it is considered de-masculinizing. We create this cycle. Women, buy your own shit. Men, stop being a baby when a woman buys your meal.

This post is not a one-size-fits all; there are some women who love a man who spends 6 hours on his hair, or wants to be a stay-at-home dad, or has never gotten a free meal in her life. The point is that the overall attitude of America seems to reflect this thinking. It is everyone’s job to break these stereotypes.

“Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
— Exchange between Lady Astor and Winston Churchill