Human Decency Gone Down the Drain

Last week, North Carolina governor Pat McCrory passed into law a bill called House Bill 2, or the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, that bars people in North Carolina from using public bathrooms marked for "Men" and "Women" if it does not match the sex given on their birth certificate. [1] This was immediately jumped on by many people for being a Pretty Bad Thing, for a variety of reasons, and even though it's not entirely like what I've covered before on this blog, I'm going to jump on it too.

First of all: how do you expect to enforce a rule like that? Are you going to make people bring their birth certificates to the bathroom and display them at the door before they're allowed to use the toilets? Or ask them to present their genitals for thorough inspection? Even if the TSA can do that already (rimshot), trying to enforce such a policy on every user of a public bathroom goes beyond "unfeasible" and straight into the realm of "ridiculous".

Okay, even barring the logistic problems, there are some more serious issues with the idea of trying to restrict bathroom use according to sex via the law. As you may or may not already know, transgender and nonbinary people are real and actual people that exist, and their gender identity and presentation often does not match what shows up on their birth certificate. The law blocks transgender men and women from using the bathrooms that correspond to their gender, and as you may expect, this can be disconcerting and uncomfortable for everyone.

The idea behind the law was to prevent cases such as men going into women's bathrooms and locker rooms, presumably for purposes of rape and murder (because that's all that men are thinking about, right?). And the North Carolina government's brilliant plan to stop this is...forcing men to use women's bathrooms and women to use men's bathrooms, apparently? Because that's now what transgender people will have to do when they need to use the public bathrooms and no unisex bathrooms are available. Never mind that there are literally zero recorded cases where a transgender person (or person pretending to be transgender, for that matter) has committed an attack in a public restroom, and states that have enacted non-discrimination laws allowing transgender people to use the right bathrooms have not reported increases in sex offenses [2]. On the other hand, violence against transgender people is all too common [3], and as a result, North Carolina's new law quite possibly makes bathrooms more dangerous, rather than less. Maybe this wasn't the original intent of the law, but when it comes down to interpreting the law, intent often doesn't matter as much as one might think it should.

And speaking of non-discrimination laws, the new North Carolina state law goes beyond simply putting forth a discriminatory law upon government and public facilities throughout the state. It also struck down a citywide law in Charlotte that permitted transgender people to use the bathroom of their gender, and sets a precedent for barring other cities and municipalities from trying to do the same [1]. In effect, it's forcing an unjust law upon all of North Carolina with no way out short of changes to the state laws or the intervention of the federal government itself. And that's terrible.

Now, in much of the popular backlash against the law, facts have been distorted and made up, and certain elements of the law are pretty unclear. Governor Pat McCrory attempted to dispel some of the fears surrounding the law in the press release "Myths vs. Facts: What New York Times, Huffington Post and other media outlets aren't saying about common-sense privacy law". Even though the title sounds like something out of an awful Buzzfeed sidebar ad, it conveys some important points about the law, including: the law can only affect government and government-funded buildings, so private companies and businesses are still allowed to do what they want. Single occupancy unisex bathrooms are fine (assuming they exist in the first place). And young children are allowed to go into the bathroom with their parents [4].

However, the concerns of transgender acceptance remain, as while the release claims that transgender people who undergo a sex change can change their birth certificate to match their identity, the reality for many is that such action is impossible. Also, the release has been accused of misrepresenting facts about the law that, according to interpretation, could result in even more drastic abuse of human rights [5]. This misrepresentation throws the credibility of the release into question and could do more harm than good when it comes to public perception of the law.

And indeed, public perception of the law is often very negative. As a result of the perceived unfairness of the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, many businesses have taken stances against it. Seriously, boycotts and cancellations have been announced, as far as it is possible to boycott an entire U.S. state [5]. Ultimately, the law hurts not only transgender people in North Carolina (and possibly America as a whole, as some states show potential to follow this precedent) but also North Carolina itself, if the backlash grows to the point that businesses pull out of the state in protest. Maybe there were good intentions behind the law at first, but the potential real effects are dire and definitely disagreeable. Hopefully, this will cause the state government to take a step back and reconsider the full implications of their actions, and the rest of America can take a lesson from what happened in North Carolina, followed by the rest of the world.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/north-carolina-gender-bathrooms-bill/
[2] http://mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms#.nVVtZEWka
[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178909000202
[4] http://governor.nc.gov/press-release/myths-vs-facts-what-new-york-times-huffington-post-and-other-media-outlets-arent
[5] http://www.wral.com/fact-check-mccrory-s-myths-vs-facts-email-on-hb2/15605025/

Warning: This Post Contains Breasts (and also death)

This year, over three hundred thousand women and nearly three thousand men are expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer. These three hundred thousand women will join the 2.8 million who already have some history of breast cancer, and out of all of these, forty thousand are expected to die.[1] Oh, and all that is in the U.S. alone; people around the world suffer from this disease, and many do not have access to the level of healthcare available in America. In light of such horrific numbers, it should be obvious that we as humans treat breast cancer as the deadly serious subject it is.

(compliments of Comicalshirt)

...Oh.

Yep, as it turns out, we as humans can't even see a disease that kills tens of thousands of American women every year without making boob jokes about it. Apparently, since everyone likes breasts so much, sticking them on breast cancer awareness ads and merchandise will draw their attention and thus get out the message. This is the logic behind the Save the Boobies campaign, and, really, you can't blame them for thinking that this was a good idea. Bringing awareness to the issue of breast cancer is certainly a laudable effort, but the method of accomplishing it, while better than nothing, leaves something to be desired.

You may be thinking, "What's the big deal? If they can get out such an important message in a way that will get people's attention, what's wrong with that?" There are quite a few things wrong with that. As you may or may not already know, forty thousand people dying every year is generally not considered cute, funny, or sexy, and while a less serious mentality about cancer may be helpful to patients who want to stay positive in their suffering, it also makes the problem seem less severe and thus in less urgent need of assistance to the general public that donates to support the efforts against breast cancer. You know, those people who are actually supposed to do something. (And yes, I realize there's some irony in me saying that issues aren't being treated seriously enough.)

Even if people do recognize that they need to help, there are problems inherent in trying to appeal to sexuality here. The basic message of the Save the Boobies campaign comes down to this: if we do not fund breast cancer research, you (and by "you" I mean "mostly just straight men") will not get to touch or look at boobies any more. If I were in charge of the campaign, I might revise this mission statement as follows: if we do not fund breast cancer research, PEOPLE WILL DIE. It seems that those who run these campaigns forget that breasts are not small wild creatures that scamper freely around the countryside on tiny legs; they are organs, and those organs are attached to people, and those people have lives, and those lives are at risk from breast cancer.

(compliments of FreeThoughtBlog)

But of course, we must remember that breasts only exist for the sexual gratification of other people. There's another, slightly more hidden implication of the campaign: your worth is defined by your boobs. It should be obvious that this kind of mentality is incredibly degrading for humanity in general, women in particular, and breast cancer patients most especially. For many sufferers, the only recourse is surgery that removes much or all of the breast tissue. Surgery can leave breasts lopsided, misshapen, or even gone entirely. Where is the cute, sexy campaign for them?

And for that matter, where is the campaign for those with small breasts? Where is the campaign for transgender and nonbinary people? And where is the campaign for men? I want to examine this last point specifically, because when I went to research statistics about breast cancer in men, I found that very few actually exist. Breastcancer.org, which boasts of "providing the most reliable, complete, and up-to-date information about breast cancer and breast health"[2], gave me a lovely set of numbers regarding development of cancer, deaths, and risk factors in U.S. women, but relegates men to a single bullet point emphasizing their relatively low rate of 1 in 1,000, in addition to ignoring every other country on Earth entirely[1]. 1 in 1,000 men is A LOT OF MEN, and while it may seem insignificant in the face of 1 in 8 women[1], it's certainly not insignificant to the 2,600 men who will be newly diagnosed with invasive breast cancer this year in the U.S. alone[3]. And while the incidence rate overall in the U.S. has declined in recent years, the incidence rate in men has remained steady. (By the way, the official symbol of breast cancer research, used by virtually every organization including Save the Boobies? A pink ribbon.)

Again, I really do appreciate the fact that people are making an effort to spread awareness about breast cancer and raise donations for research. However, I think that can be done without objectifying, demeaning, and outright denying the existence of breast cancer patients. It's a really awful thing for a purportedly charitable organization to do, right up there with engaging in political activities, suing other charities, and supporting corporations whose products are known to contain carcinogens themselves. Fortunately, no breast cancer awareness charity would stoop to things like those, right?

...Oh.



[1] http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics
[2] http://www.breastcancer.org/
[3] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancerinmen/detailedguide/breast-cancer-in-men-key-statistics

Thinking (too hard) About Pink Episode II: A Tax on the Colognes

Last week, I looked at some products sold in our own Penn State Bookstore which, for reasons that are still not entirely clear, came in bright pink in addition to Penn State's blue/white/grey/black/neon green (I still don't quite know what's up with that neon green stuff). While it still seems very strange to me that things like shirts, lanyards, and water bottles need to be colored pink to appeal to women, I can say this in defense of the Bookstore: at least they still had the same price tags. In other stores, one might not be so lucky.

(compliments of KGW)

Yep, that's right. These are two packages of razors from the same store. One set of razors is pink, and the other is blue. They are practically identical in every aspect except their color. And yet, the pink ones are a full ninety cents more expensive than the same blue ones. This is one example of what's being called the "pink tax", where products targeted for women are priced significantly higher than their male-targeted counterparts, and it's certainly not the only one. Just as all sorts of items are divided along gender lines whether it really makes sense or not, so too are prices, on everything from clothes to shaving supplies to perfume, and it's usually (though not always) women who get the short end of the unnecessarily gendered stick.

(compliments of KGW)

How can stores get away with such obvious price discrimination? After all, it's well-known that women make 78 cents on average for every dollar a man makes (a factoid which, despite being oversimplified and misleading, is cited ad nauseam every time any discussion on gender equality comes up, so I'm going to avoid ever using it again here), which should theoretically give women less money to use when shopping. And among people who have actually tried both products of the same type marketed towards men or women, when there is a difference, many say that it's actually the ones marketed to men that are superior. So why raise the price when it comes to pink?

Some products, primarily certain articles of clothing, do actually have some differences between what's sold to men and to women. These are often minor additions or changes in formula that don't have too much of an effect on the product's actual effectiveness, but due to the changes companies claim that they can justify raising the price on one version or the other.

However, when it's just a matter of coloration, there's less to excuse this division. The reason why products marketed toward women often have the higher price seems to be rooted in stereotypes. The theory goes that women are more likely to buy into products that claim to be specially made for them or loaded with buzzwords, even if the price is higher than the alternative, while men are more likely to just go for whatever kind is cheapest. Obviously, it's a very sexist marketing strategy, but apparently it works, as products marketed towards women still stay on the market and sell well despite the higher price. It certainly doesn't help that stores dividing "men's" sections from "women's" sections discourages actually comparing the prices and the qualities of the products, to the point that many people aren't even aware that the "pink tax" exists at all.

Well, now that we are aware, what can we do about it? Unfortunately, I do not think that manufacturers are going to spontaneously realize the error of their ways and lower the prices on overcharged products. (If anything, wouldn't they raise the prices on the male counterparts, since obviously people are willing to pay for them at the higher price?) It instead falls to consumers to make wise choices when they go shopping, and we, all being responsible adults with our own steady incomes and ability to do our own shopping (ha ha), can take part. Next time you have to shop for supplies, carefully check prices and see what your alternatives are, so that you can save money or get the highest-quality product. Or, if one company in particular seems to have a history of unfair pricing, avoid buying from them entirely. After all, there really is no rule that says you have to buy the products which are targeted for your particular gender. If you like it, you can buy it, and nobody can do anything to stop you. And if you can defy the societal norms of gender and save a few cents all at the same time, well!

Thinking (too hard) About Pink

It is everywhere, and it follows everyone. Nobody really knows quite what it is, or how it came among us, but it is a constant presence in all of our lives, even those who give it little consideration. It divides cities, countries, families, and individuals, and it has been known to take lives. It is gender, and honestly, it's probably not the sinister force of malevolence I've made it out to be in these last few sentences. (Probably.) However, it is a powerful force nonetheless, and people know it and use it. Over the course of this blog, I'll be writing about some of the ways that marketers and others use the concept of gender to push their own ends, which for the purposes of this blog will usually involve getting money, as well as examples of when gendered items are just weird and unnecessary (which is pretty much all the time).

You really don't have to look very far to find oddly gendered products for sale, so I first took a look at the nearest and most convenient store I could find: the Penn State Bookstore in the HUB.

There it is, in the middle of the rows upon rows of blue, gray, black, and white shirts carefully arranged at the entrance of the Penn State Bookstore: a single rack of magenta T-shirts. How did it get here, and why? If you answered "breast cancer awareness", you're not entirely right. While the store does support the cause, these particular shirts make no mention of breast cancer research, and even though there are some issues with the marketing strategy (to be covered in a future post?), it is generally agreed that merchandise sold to support breast cancer awareness usually does a good job of conveying some actual awareness of breast cancer. These products are totally unmarked as such. Alternatively, if you answered "pink is the new official color of Penn State", you are, unfortunately, wrong. And, if your answer was "because pink is just a nice color!", why, you're absolutely right! Pink is an excellent color to wear! Why, just look at all these wonderful pink clothes:

...wait, what? See, this section of the store is where many of the more masculine clothing items are, and, as we all know, men can never be seen in such a feminine color, lest they lose all manhood and respect in the eyes of their peers. Conversely, products that women might use must be available in pink, so that their femininity is immediately obvious to their users and any onlookers:

Examples like these can be found in all sorts of stores on all sorts of products, even if there's no real reason why they should need to be differentiated at all. Now, obviously, there's a number of options available to women who aren't particularly fond of pink. And if someone who's not a woman decides they want to buy an entire pink outfit and wear it everywhere they go, there's really not much that can stop them. Still, in a world where even water bottles are colored according to the gender of the intended user, you have to wonder, what's up with the constant assignment of pink products to girls? And, for that matter, why is blue the main color that's given to boys? 

In fact, for much of history, it was pink that went to boys, and blue for girls. Also, many products, such as clothing for children, were considered "neutral" and thus not especially made for any gender in particular. Precisely why the switch happened is unclear, although plenty of theories exist, throwing blame on subjects from Eleanor Roosevelt to Adolf Hitler. Regardless, by the 1940s and 1950s, the color patterns of today were set, and now many people accept "pink for girls, blue for boys" without question. This is most defined in children, whose parents or guardians are usually the ones buying clothes for them; how often do you see a little boy in pink, or wearing a tiny dress? No matter what the child's preference in clothes is, parents will dress them in the way that they think is ideal, and this ideal is often rooted in the parents' perception of the child's gender.

Now, why are so many products split according to pink and blue? That is also unclear, but signs are pointing to "because money". The line of thinking goes that by differentiating their products, manufacturers can reach a greater consumer base and sell more products, and dividing according to gender lines is a simple method, since nearly everyone is considered either male or female and the split is roughly 50-50. Color, too, is just one of the easiest ways to make products appear different without having to put much effort into it, since it is easier to use alternate-colored materials than to redesign the entire product.

Ultimately, though, there is not much reason that the color of the clothes should matter to consumers. You can certainly choose to wear and use products of whatever color you want (even those neon green shirts that are also in the bookstore for some reason). Yet companies continue to market their products in pink for women, and people continue to pick their purchases depending on which color best fits their gender, not which color they really like, and parents continue to refuse to buy their sons pink clothes because "it'll make you look like a girl". Why does one color need to be such a big deal?