Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, February 7, 2012 2:07 pm

UPDATE: CNN suspended Roland Martin.

When the David Beckham underwear ad for clothing retailer H&M came on during the Super Bowl, CNN’s Roland Martin took to Twitter to comment on it. Now, Martin is under fire from gay rights group GLAAD.

Here are Martin’s tweets:

Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear! #superbowl

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) February 6, 2012

If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) February 6, 2012

A lot of people on Twitter responded negatively to the remark, including GLAAD. The gay rights group and Martin had this exchange:

@glaad @CNN well you’re clearly out of touch and clueless with what I tweeted. Way to assume, but you’re way off base.

— rolandsmartin (@rolandsmartin) February 6, 2012

Critics also point to a history of remarks including this piece he wrote on his website in 2006. In the post, he equates homosexuality to sinful behavior like stealing and infidelity and says his wife, a Baptist minister, “has counseled many men and women to walk away from the gay lifestyle.”

On Monday, Martin posted this on his Twitter feed:

Fam, let me address the issue that some in the LGBT community have raised regarding some of my Super Bowl tweets yesterday. I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I’m sorry folks took it otherwise. It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it’s another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.

Martin’s Twitter timeline is filled with protestations that he was just talking about soccer. Even if that’s the case, he implies football is a better sport because it’s manlier. And because it’s better and manly, it should beat up inferior and less manly sports – presumably, like soccer – and the people who like them. By saying a “real bruh” wouldn’t buy David Beckham’s underwear and by suggesting followers should “smack the ish [shit]” out of someone who likes the ad, he basically said my sport is better, manlier, and can kick the shit out of you and your sport.

That’s if you believe he was just talking about soccer, but I don’t think he was.
Continue reading 'CNN Contributor Roland Martin In Trouble Over Tweets About The David Beckham H&M Super Bowl Ad'»

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, January 10, 2012 4:01 pm

After being the GOP’s latest (and for him, best-timed) flavor of the month, Iowa Caucus co-winner Rick Santorum told a group of New Hampshire voters that it’s “snobbery” for President Obama to think he knows “how to run our lives” and say that everyone should go to college. Speaking at St. Anselm College (the irony!), Santorum said he was “outraged” at “the hubris of this president to think that he knows what’s best for you.”

I agree with Santorum that college isn’t for everyone and someone certainly doesn’t need to finish college to be personally successful or influential in high-tech fields. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are the best examples of that. Not everyone is going to be a Zuckerberg or a Gates, though.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Obama wasn’t suggesting a federal mandate stating every person is required to go to college. I’m sure he meant that everyone should have the opportunity - the freedom! – to go college, if they choose.

So, while college isn’t for everyone, Obama is correct in suggesting that it’s a good thing and makes life better. Here are three reasons why:

Continue reading 'Rick Santorum’s Outrage And Snobbery'»

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, November 10, 2011 6:00 pm

All forms of media are blowing up with reaction to the firing of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, the rape and sex abuse charges against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, and the blind eye so many at Penn State turned to it. There’s a lot going on here: idolatry; the culture of college sports; people within institutions not holding themselves and their institutions accountable.

This story is multi-faceted with so many different angles, causes and repercussions, I wanted to put some them together to try to find some context.

First, let’s call these alleged crimes at Penn State what they are writes Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

The nomenclature surrounding “sex crimes” is already hopelessly sterile, and the media routinely refers to cases of rape and sexual assault as “sex scandals,” but that makes it no less important to call them out every time they do it.

Sandusky is not accused of “having sex” with little boys, he is accused of raping them. In our civilization, “sex” with a child is not possible, since a child cannot consent to sex. As I half-listened to the news all day today, then, and I heard repeated references to “the Penn State sex scandal,” it pissed me off. It made my blood steam a little bit, like a hot cup of coffee.

(I would apply this criticism to the Dominique Strauss-Kahn alleged sexual assault which was often referred to as a “sex scandal.”)

Many have made the connection between the cover-up at Penn State and the Catholic Church’s cover-up of child molestation. Maureen Dowd made it in her Tuesday column in the New York Times:

Like the Roman Catholic Church, Penn State is an arrogant institution hiding behind its mystique. And sports, as my former fellow sports columnist at The Washington Star, David Israel, says, is “an insular world that protects its own, and operates outside of societal norms as long as victories and cash continue to flow bountifully.” Penn State rakes in $70 million a year from its football program.

Lawrence O’Donnell also discussed the failure of institutions and the people within them with with filmmaker Michael Moore on The Last Word.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There was a lot of reaction on Twitter last night as protesters and rioters took to the streets at Penn State in support of Paterno.
Continue reading 'Penn State Child Sex Abuse Opinion Wrap-Up'»

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, August 16, 2011 11:02 am

A couple of weeks ago, the Huffington Post compiled a slideshow of photos to find out what sexism looks like. Where did they look for sexism? On stock photo websites:

In an effort to enlighten ourselves, we searched the term “sexist” on several stock photography sites, and we came up with some fairly resolute results. First of all, almost all sexism occurs in the office. Second, coffee and ties are often unwitting accomplices to sexism. Third, there’s a guy out there somewhere who has a shirt with little pigs all over it and the word “Sexy” in big letters. Watch out for him: he’s clearly very sexist and dangerous.

It’s hard to put humor aside when looking at some of the photos. They’re more ridiculous than sexist.

As they pointed out, many of the photos chosen by the companies (or maybe just by HuffPost) take place in an office. It’s at work where there’s an obvious imbalance of power. It wasn’t always men, though, who were the perpetrators of sexism (or ridiculousness).

But what makes this fascinating isn’t that these photos are ironclad definitions of sexist behavior. Some of them clearly aren’t. But they are what someone, somewhere – specifically, researchers at these stock photo companies - perceive as sexist. Because two people won’t perceive a situation in exactly the same way, discussing perceptions usually lead to interesting conversations.

So, take a look at the slideshow at the Huffington Post and tell me what you think.

Follow me on Twitter. Connect with me of Facebook.

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, June 13, 2011 12:52 am

It’s not just bad acts or crimes that get politicians in trouble. It’s the cover-ups.

Congressman (for now) Anthony Weiner never heard or perhaps forgot this important lesson of politics. But he didn’t just try cover-up the scandal by lying in one written statement. He lied to everyone, the press, the public, everyone. And, he did it continuously for a week.

And, of course, he lied to his wife.

The sex aspect of Congressman Anthony Weiner’s downfall does bother me a bit. It makes him a dick of husband (had to say it), and while it seems like the other women were adults, it’s unclear how many of them were asking to see the Full Weiner.

He lied about all of it in full-on John Edwards-style: looking at the press and the people dead in the eye and proclaiming his innocence. This is what bothers me.

The reason why so many liberals liked Weiner was because of impassioned and forthright speeches like this one.

He talked about “courage” and “cowardly” things like “providing cover” “instead of doing the right thing.”

He was talking about being truthful.

Weiner should have listened to his own advice. His passionate voice on so many issues now rings hollow.

Comments (1)

By Dean Arrindell, May 20, 2011 12:11 pm

Would it be offensive if there was a website where men took photos of women on the subway without their knowledge, posted them online, then added comments about how attractive they were?

It probably would be.

If the genders were reversed, would it still be offensive?

Check out TubeCrush.net to find out. It’s a UK site in which pictures are taken of men – without their knowledge - on the London Underground. The photos are submitted to the site and then the folks at TubeCrush write captions like this:

Let’s play a game shall we? It’s similar to Simon Says, but this one is called Jack Will. Basically you stay stuff that you think he should do, and he’ll do it. I’ll go first…

Jack will…make my jaw hit the floor because he’s so hot.

Next up…

Jack will…take his top off….(well, we can dream can’t we?)

Kind of cute? Kind of cheesy? Yes. Offensive? Not to me. None of the pictures I’ve seen go down shirts or up shorts. They don’t show anything explicit.

The viewing and consuming a male body by a woman is different than a man looking at a woman’s body. The nature of what makes a man physically attractive is easier to talk about in polite conversation. “Take off his top” from the caption above, is a lot different than “Take off her top.” Men are generally more sexually aggressive and perceived as more sexually threatening than women. And a man gawking at a woman – especially without her knowledge or consent – can be threatening.

We’ve reached the point where if you’re in public, anything you do is up for grabs by a camera. (So, be aware what you’re doing.) When non-consensual photographs are taken for sexual titillation, though, and regardless of the shooter, viewer or subject, the whole endeavor still gives off a whiff of creepiness.

But it matters who the shooters, viewers and subjects are, I wouldn’t say there’s a double-standard when it comes to TubeCrush. A website with pictures of women for a male audience wouldn’t be the same situation.

What do you think?

H/t: Salon. See also: Good Men Project

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, May 11, 2011 2:00 am

I can appreciate a good sex joke (and by “good,” I mean immature and slightly rude), but not when watching a newscast.

This is a clip from the KTLA morning news program in Los Angeles about a Shake Weight class (I’m not kidding). The segment is so inappropriate, on so many levels, in so many instances, I couldn’t look away.

Jokes are fine, but not this television train wreck. Just give me the news.

Brace yourself.

H/t: TVSpy

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, April 7, 2011 11:41 pm

CNN’s health blog, The Chart, took a look at how women cheat differently than men. Ian Kerner writes that women tend to be more emotionally involved in the affair, while men are less emotional and tend to compartmentalize it. Because of that, says Kerner, a marriage in which a woman cheats is harder to save than one in which a man cheats.

But what got my attention was the part about employment and income. Kerner cites a study that indicates a high-salary job correlates to increased likelihood of cheating:

While there aren’t any hard statistics on female infidelity, most experts agree that it’s on the rise, especially among women who have their own careers and a degree of financial independence. A University of Washington study found that people who earned $75,000 or more per year were 1.5 times more likely to have had extramarital sex than those earning less than $30,000. And with so many women in the workplace, it’s no surprise that among the spouses who cheated, 46 percent of women and 62 percent of men did so with someone they met through work.

I’m not suggesting that women – or men, for that matter – with high paying jobs aren’t marriage material because they’re going to cheat. The University of Washington study makes sense, though. If someone has a job and is able to support themselves financially, but is in a bad marriage and has the opportunity to meet someone who makes them happy, it makes sense that person will be more likely to cheat, or at least get out of that unhappy marriage.

It doesn’t make cheating right, but it makes sense.

Do you think female infidelity is on the rise because, as the post suggests, more women are in higher positions in the workforce?

As the number of women in the workforce catches up with the number of men – along with their salaries – will infidelity rates between the men and women begin to equal out as well?

Photo credit: Rushell070/Flickr

See also:
If Wives Make More, Could They Cheat More?
Wives Make More.. More Often

Follow me on Twitter and let’s connect on Facebook.

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, March 31, 2011 2:17 am

Men and women apparently get old at different times in their lives. Or rather, they feel they get old at different times.

That’s according to a survey of 1000 people conducted by Avalon Funeral Plans in the U.K.

The NY Daily News reports women in the survey say they feel old at age 29. (That’s right, 29! Jeez!) The age men say they’re old is 58.

What made the men and women in the poll think their youthful days are in the past? For women, more than half said it’s their “assets heading south.” For two-thirds of men, it’s “decreased libido/not as ‘able’ in the bedroom.”

Interestingly, both men and women said 29 is the age when women “don’t have ‘it’ anymore.”

Alice Newsham, an Avalon spokesperson said, “We wanted to look at the perceptions of age, especially looking at men and women and the differences between them.”

What do you think? Why do you think there’s such a huge difference – twice the age – between when men and women perceive themselves as being old?

What about you? Are your assets, mojo or something else making you feel old?

Photo: Rebeca Cygnus/Flickr

Follow me on Twitter and connect with me on Facebook.

Comments (0)

By Dean Arrindell, March 29, 2011 2:26 am

What could make a group of 18 men and boys gang rape an 11-year-old girl, take pictures and video of the brutal crime and distribute those images to others?

That’s what they’re trying to figure out in Cleveland, Texas where this horrible event allegedly occurred.

So, how do we raise boys to fight sexism and sexual violence and prevent tragedies like this from happening?

Continue reading 'Raising Boys To Fight Sexism And Rape'»