Ranthropologist

Blog

  • Daily Reads: The Barbie Vagina

    Daily Reads: The Barbie Vagina

    If the title of today’s Daily Read didn’t get your attention, then perhaps this will: “In 2013, the most recent year for which statistics are available, more than 5,000 labiaplasties were performed in the United States. That may not seem like a huge number, but it’s an astounding 44% increase over just one year prior, making labiaplasty the second fastest growing plastic surgery that year.” This fascinating statistic comes from an article on Alternet by Kali Holloway. Labiaplasty is a form of plastic surgery in which women have their inner labia – the inner lips of their vagina – cut and shaped to be more aesthetically appealing. The article attributes this to a rise in “perfect” genitalia being showcased in pornography. In recent years, both male and female porn actors have shaved and shaped their pubic areas to reveal more of their genitals, and with this trend has come an uptick in surgeries among women who perceive their vaginas as deviating from the porn standard, which values a smooth, hairless, and small-lipped vagina – the Barbie vagina. I find this fascinating for multiple reasons, not least of which is the fact that a smooth, “pure” vagina is one of the goals of female genital cutting (FGC), which is practiced in multiple places around the world. I teach about this practice in my cultural anthropology classes to help students learn about cultural relativity. Of course we find FGC to be horrifying – especially because it is associated with men’s control over women’s sexuality and behavior, and the young girls who are subjected to it are not given any choice. The cultural relativity part doesn’t mean we have to accept this practice; it just means that we need to try to understand it from the perspective of its practitioners rather than judging it from our own cultural standpoint (this is a complicated subject so I won’t go into it here; just suffice to say that exercising cultural relativity does not mean finding a practice acceptable). In any case, I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees an uncomfortable parallel with voluntary labiaplasty and FGC. In my classes, I typically juxtapose FGC with voluntary plastic surgeries such as breast implants. Now, I’ll be able to use labiaplasties as the example instead and ask my students why they are different from FGC. I’m sure it will generate some vigorous and thoughtful discussion.

    The Labiaplasty Boom: Why Are Women Desperate for the Perfect Vagina?

  • Daily Reads: Healthy Dirtiness

    Daily Reads: Healthy Dirtiness

    This article I ran across on Vox makes me very happy because it reflects something I’ve been teaching students in my classes for years: that being too clean can make you less healthy. This is especially true for children. The article discusses what is known as the hygiene hypothesis, which proposes that exposure to allergens, viruses, bacteria, etc. – in other words, a less than fully sanitized environment – strengthens children’s immune systems by allowing them to develop defenses from a young age (although I hasten to note, as the article does, that this does not mean children should not be vaccinated. In fact, vaccination operates on the same principle: that exposure to a small amount of inert virus primes the immune system to respond when that virus is encountered in the wild. So this is not an excuse to avoid vaccination in favor of deliberately infecting your kid with a disease like measles). Research is starting to show that children who are kept in environments that are too clean are more likely to develop autoimmune diseases such as asthma. I have long railed against the use of products like antibacterial soaps and household cleaning products, hand sanitizers, and antibacterial wipes partly for this reason. I jokingly recommend to my students that if they ever have children, the kids should be rolled about in a dirt pile every day – but I’m not really joking. Here’s one good takeaway from the article: “In the wealthy world, adults who clean their houses with antibacterial sprays have higher asthma rates, and people who are more often exposed to triclosan  (the active ingredient in antibacterial soap) have higher rates of allergies and hay fever. Kids who grow up on farms or have pets, meanwhile, have lower rates of allergies and asthma.” Read the entire article to learn more about how our obsession with cleanliness may be affecting our health.

    The hygiene hypothesis: How being too clean might be making us sick

  • Logical Fallacies: No True Scotsman

    Logical Fallacies: No True Scotsman

    I had planned to post a Daily Read tonight, but then I heard the news that three young Muslims had been shot to death in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, by a man who has apparently referred to himself on Facebook as an “anti-theist.” This is a radical form of atheism in which the person goes beyond just not believing in god/gods/religion; instead, anti-theism is explicitly opposed to religions of any kind. According to the several articles I have read about this, the shooting is being linked to a parking dispute between the shooter and the victims, two of whom lived in the same apartment complex as the shooter. Yet, because of the shooter’s outspoken anti-theism and various remarks on his Facebook page in which he expresses extreme antipathy towards religion, and towards fundamentalist Christians and Muslims in particular, the Chapel Hill police department is investigating these murders as a possible hate crime.

    I am an atheist. My first reaction when I read that the shooter is an anti-theist was one of dismay. Atheists love to point out that no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism, while millions of people have died in the name of various religions. Already, prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins are publicly expressing their shock over the shootings and repudiating the notion that it is acceptable to kill someone because of their religious beliefs; at the same time, Dawkins is also tweeting about the parking dispute motive and blaming that instead. And parking may well be the proximate motive for these murders, but I really don’t think it’s smart to remove the shooter’s anti-theism from the equation. Instead, we should acknowledge it. If we don’t, then I fear we fall into the no true Scotsman fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone makes a proposition such as “No atheist would ever kill a Muslim simply because they are Muslim.” The rejoinder would be “The shooter in Chapel Hill is an atheist who killed Muslims.” The fallacy comes with the response that “No true atheist would kill a Muslim for being Muslim.” In other words, the person attempts to preserve their original argument by saying that this person cannot be defined as an actual atheist. In the case of these murders, atheists can also make the argument that while the shooter may be an anti-theist he is also clearly mentally ill, and that is the real reason for this tragedy. It’s not quite the no true Scotsman fallacy, but it’s the same idea; that is, it proposes that anti-theism can’t truly be the shooter’s motive.

    No true Scotsman is often used in a religious context. “No true Christian would murder an abortion doctor”; “No true Muslim would blow people up in the name of Islam”; etc. But whether we want to believe it or not, some people who identify themselves as Christian do commit violence that they attempt to justify with their version of Christianity, and some people who identify themselves as Muslim do commit acts of terror in the name of their version of Islam. They are Christian. They are Muslim. Just as atheists shouldn’t fall for the no true Scotsman fallacy in the case of this anti-theist murderer, so should Christians and Muslims not fall for it when confronted with the bad things that people will do in the name of these religions. And let’s also not get bogged down in bean-counting which religion is worse – horrible things have been done in the name of many religions throughout history and in the present, whether by individuals or entire groups.

    I think the problem is that other Christians and Muslims end up getting tarred with the same broad brush when tragedies like this happen – and now the same thing is going to happen to atheists. But just as there are Christians, Muslims, and now, apparently, atheists who commit violence in the name of their beliefs, it is equally true that not every Christian, Muslim, or atheist will commit violence in the name of their beliefs – or even that they support violence by others in the name of their beliefs. We call these people extremists for a reason – because their ideologies are extreme and, by definition, they exist on the far fringes of the overall belief systems they claim to be a part of. People tend to tack from the no true Scotsman fallacy on the one hand when the violence is done in the name of their particular religion, to the equally fallacious conclusion that if one Muslim/Christian/atheist is violent they must all be violent on the other hand.

    Personally, I think this shooter very likely is mentally ill. I also think he probably was motivated by a parking dispute – but it’s arguable that the dispute itself may not have existed had his neighbors not been clearly identifiable as Muslim based on the attire of the female victims. I also think it’s likely that mental illness is the culprit for lots of other allegedly religious-motivated crimes, particularly when they are perpetrated by individuals acting alone (and for the record, I don’t think mental illness is involved in the case of organized religious violence a la ISIS or the Lord’s Resistance Army). But let’s not dismiss the man’s anti-theism as irrelevant. If the shooter was motivated by his beliefs then it’s better to acknowledge it than to look silly by trying to deny it. Just as Muslim community leaders speak out to condemn violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, it’s smart for atheists to condemn this shooting, even if mental illness and/or a parking dispute is truly the culprit. No true atheist should do otherwise.

  • Brandwashing

    Brandwashing

    Raise your hand if you’ve never heard of breast cancer. How about AIDS? Do heart disease, leukemia, or diabetes ring a bell? You may not have been aware of ALS, or amylotrophic lateral sclerosis, until recently… although you probably have heard of its common name, Lou Gehrig’s disease. What about domestic violence? Are you just now realizing that sometimes people are the victims of violence at the hands of their significant others? I’m going to guess that you have heard of all of these diseases, and that you have known for a long time that there are people who assault and victimize their romantic partners. So why do I ask? Because apparently there are many big, brand-name corporations who want to “raise awareness” of these issues by selling you their products.

    The fact that corporations profit from these so-called “awareness” campaigns is not surprising. I have been wary for years of the now-ubiquitous October “pink ribbon” campaigns for breast cancer. And lest I be misunderstood, let me state right now that I absolutely support activities and charities that actually raise significant sums to help fight diseases or help the victims of domestic violence. Of course I want there to be cures for cancer and debilitating diseases, and of course I want the domestic violence victims to have the support and resources to escape abuse. But when brands and their corporate parents throw their weight behind these causes by offering their products for sale and promising that a portion of the proceeds will benefit the cause, I am skeptical and cynical. I don’t doubt that there are individuals within corporations who do care about these causes, but let’s be honest: big brands use their breast cancer campaigns to make money, bottom line – and to build a reserve of social capital by appearing to be a warm and caring champion for women rather than a corporate behemoth that is beholden to shareholders and the profit motive. Lest I seem too cynical, bear in mind that these breast cancer “awareness” campaigns frequently raise tiny fractions of money, but buy their corporate backers enormous – and unearned – goodwill from an uncritical public. These campaigns have been dubbed “pinkwashing” by those who see them for what they are. Take the NFL as one example: according to The Guardian, “The NFL is exploiting breast cancer for its own gain and setting a pathetic example for big business: with nearly $10bn in annual revenue, they have given a mere $4.5m to breast cancer research since the pink misdirection play began.” Ok, so $4.5 million dollars is not nothing; but it is a drop in the bucket for a megabusiness (or shall I say, an untaxed non-profit!) like the NFL – and the money they contribute comes from sales of merchandise to consumers, not from the NFL’s own pockets. Adding insult to injury, that money is only 8 percent of the total that is spent by consumers to buy the NFL’s pinkwashed merchandise.

    The NFL is actually the reason I bring up this topic in the first place. They have started a new “awareness” campaign regarding the socially conscious topic du jour: domestic violence. Their campaign – which I won’t link to, but which you can find on your own if you so desire – is called “No More.” In the article “No More, The NFL’s Domestic Violence Partner, Is A Sham,”Deadspindeconstructs the branding of causes by corporations in general and focuses on the NFL in particular. In the spirit of pinkwashing, I am dubbing this phenomenon “brandwashing.” No More is explicit in its acknowledgement that the NFL needed to “brand” its anti-domestic violence campaign. The article juxtaposes this with the origins of the red AIDS ribbon, which grew organically out of a desperate desire by early AIDS activists to bring attention to a plight that at the time was truly in need of awareness-raising. Of course now, AIDS is used by corporations to give a rosy glow of social consciousness to their brand in the same way that the pinkwashing of breast cancer does, and with just as little actual positive impact on the cause.

    Ultimately, the NFL is trying to get off easy with its cynical use of No More to “raise awareness” of an issue that people everywhere are already aware of; and in fact, are even more aware of in light of the NFL’s kid-glove treatment of the domestic violence (and child abuse and violent crime) perpetrators  in its midst. But to me, the most horrifying thing about this is that the “awareness raising” of the NFL’s domestic violence brand is based on selling merchandise and asking people to buy things rather than directly contributing to the cause they pretend to be concerned about (for a graphic arts take on this, see the powerful poster created by my friend David Bernie). Since when does buying a case for your iPhone, or a t-shirt, or a mug, do anything to help cancer victims or AIDS patients or those suffering from domestic violence? The Deadspin article puts it best: “What good this does for people in need of help isn’t always clear, but it’s great for the brands, because all they have to do is slap logos on a few products and/or advertisements and throw a few pennies to charity to make themselves seem socially conscious.” Let’s be clear: the NFL is brandwashing this problem to make it go away and make the league look good in the process, not because they care about domestic violence.

    Let me conclude by reiterating that I am completely behind honest efforts to raise money and do concrete things to solve some of our greatest medical and social problems – but brandwashing is not the way to do it.

    If you really want to do something to help end domestic violence, here are a few places to start. The best way to help is to donate money directly to the charity of your choice – or, if you can, volunteer. That will do a lot more than “raising awareness” by drinking coffee out of a No More mug.

    National Network to End Domestic Violence

    Safe Horizon

  • Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    When I first discovered the website Jezebel, the writer Lindy West quickly became one of my favorite contributors. She is fiercely intelligent, incredibly funny, and delightfully straightforward. I loved everything she wrote for Jezebel. Lindy has moved on to writing for The Guardian, and in this piece she talks about what it is like to be targeted by online trolls. Most of you already know this, but an internet troll is a person who leaves anonymous comments, tweets, or emails that are meant to insult or provoke. Trolls can be incredibly vicious and degrading, and for West, who frequently writes about feminism, the trolls are also virulently misogynistic. She writes that she has developed armor to help protect her from commenters who talk about how they want to rape or kill her, but she also acknowledges the heavy burden these trolls place on her and her colleagues. The story West has to tell is disturbing but also, potentially, hopeful – it involves how she ended up having a long conversation with one of her trolls who had come to recognize the error of his ways. West does more than write about this remorseful troll – she also did a piece on her experience with him for This American Life, which you can listen to here. West’s article and the radio piece are really about much more than just her particular trolls; they are about the breakdown in civility that can occur in the modern online world, and what can happen when people are given anonymity. I think it is an important read.

    What happened when I confronted my cruellest troll

  • Daily Reads: Superbowl Economics

    Daily Reads: Superbowl Economics

    Now that the Superb Owl has passed for another year, I’d like to share this article about how investments in sporting arenas and teams and the big events they generate are not the economic boon to cities that sports boosters would like us to believe. Travis Waldron of Think Progress zeroes in on the economic woes of Glendale, Arizona, host city to the 2015 Super Bowl, and details how the city has gone desperately into hock financing major sporting facilities and events. I personally found it extremely refreshing that Glendale’s mayor spoke publicly about the fact that the Super Bowl, rather than making money for his beleaguered city (see what I did there?), actually put Glendale deeper in the hole (note that the Super Bowl was awarded to Glendale before he became mayor). The public is taken in by the idea that the Super Bowl and events like it generate millions of dollars in economic activity, so the cities who get to host them will make big bucks. While it is true that there is millions of dollars in economic activity, what is not discussed is what those numbers really mean. “Economic activity” is a nebulous term – it does not parse the data to see where that economic activity is actually taking place and who benefits – or not – from the money that is changing hands. This article and others like it are important for us to understand what our cities may be signing up for when they tout sports teams, facilities, and events as positive economic drivers.

    The Super Bowl Comes To Glendale, The City Ruined By Sports