Oprah's Ethics with Regard to the "Monkey Woman"

Please forgive me if this post seems a little rushed, but I am posting it quickly before I see my evening clients. I even considered NOT discussing it at all as talking about it makes it bigger...but nonetheless.

I was at the gym and on the big screens, as well as many of the little ones that dot the facility, Oprah was playing as she does in most markets at 4 PM. I was running and reading (multi-tasker that I am) and looked up to see Oprah talking to a woman with a veil over her face. I tuned my machine's unit in and put in my earbuds. It was the lady who had tragically had her face torn off by a pet monkey earlier this year.

Oprah was respectful and patient in her questioning and responses as she usually is. However, a little past the thirty minute mark she asked the lady if she would let Oprah TAKE OFF THE VEIL! I was stunned and turned of my unit as I did not want to see it. However, the big screen played on and the rest of the interview was conducted without the netting she had on earlier.

Wow, I am really uncomfortable with this not so much as a clinican but as a human being. What I want to know, and perhaps that information is out there, is did the lady tell Oprah she wanted to show her face or did the grand lady of TV ask her? If it was the second, I find that to be an egregious abuse of her power and influence. Any ideas on which version is what occurred?

And then, to top it off, the minute the show ended the local affiliate led the news with the image of the woman's face. All the news in the country and this is a lead story? One more strike, as if they needed one, against them. I find most media to be repulsive opportunists...and this is more evidence to support my argument against them.

On the Outside Looking In

(no win situations) = trouble

The Maine decision has come and gone and voters have decided that not everyone in their fair state is equal. As has happened thirty times before, a targeted minority, homosexuals men and women, has been denied their civil rights by a state's electorate.

My whole life people have told me how bad the gay lifestyle is. Growing up I had it explained to me that because homos won't not settle down and have kids, they can "never understand being an adult." Since gays won't act like adults, the logic went, they are doomed to a life of loneliness and misery.

Happily as I grew into adulthood a different scenario came onto the scene--the gay marriage movement. "Wow," I thought, "this will be an opportunity for gay people to be what most people said could not be--real adults, with responsibilities to a spouse, children and a mortgage."

How foolish I was. For the same people who complained about queers tricking all night and not settling down WOULD NOT ALLOW HOMOS THE SIMPLE ABILITY TO DO SO. The had created a room with no windows and no doors. Queers were damned for not being "adult" and damned for wanting to be one.

No win situations can create anger, depression anxiety and a variety of other emotions as well. I wonder what the end result of denying a minority of tax-paying adults the right to marry will create in the long run?

Forbes Article Promotes a Racist and Sexist Agenda

I was not planning on blogging today but after innocently turning on my Mac I saw a story on Yahoo! via Forbes Magazine about commonalities among billionaires. So I clicked to see what they were. The article is one of those cream puff pieces that sites like Yahoo! adore--lots of sizzle--no protein.

I was not surprised by what I saw, at least at first. The financial leaders were mostly Ivy League, had usually worked in finance, a great many had suffered some sort of financial failure, yadda yadda. But slowly I was stunned by what was NOT there. The two most overwhelming common traits is that almost all of them, perhaps every one, is white and male. But those two facts are not mentioned, nor even hinted at in the piece. 

• parents good at math?       crucial
• fact they have XY chrmosones?     trivial
• born in the fall?     crucial
• have European ancestors?     trivial
  

Look at the picture above--it is the lead picture for the store. By all appearances, that Anglo child is male, donning the culturally significant blue jumper. So even though their picture, most probably selected by a photo editor, explains the story's raison d'etre, not a peep about these key facts appear in the story.     

White males continue to rule the world; those white men who don't admit to that power differential are actively taking part in the continued oppression of all outside of that elite class.       

By the way, I looked up the author of the piece, one Duncan Greenberg. Guess where the author falls on the gender/ethnicity grid?    

(lack of acknowledging the playing field is not level) = maintaining the status quo

Men Happier Than Women? No Ship Sherlock

After watching this weekend's television I have decided that the world is a fairly safe place, at least for the moment. The reason being that CNN apparently has little to report, outside of a study saying the men are happier than women.

What makes this a surprise?

Women have less power in our society than men. Any time a group has less power they are less likely to be happy. Regardless of if the group is denied their rights by sex, gender, sexuality, economics or skin tone, the dominant segment is going to display a decided tendency to be more satisfied with their lives.

Yes, I recognize women have made strides in the social arena since the dark days pre-Betty Friedan. However, there is hardly equity between women and their far happier male counterparts. Anyone who doubts that fact needs to check out the makeup of the senate. Women are half the population--how many female senators are there? Or how about C.E.O.s--how many of them have duplicate chromosomes? Men still run the world...and smiles will fall on those in charge.

Also, consider the fact that women are far more in touch with their feelings than their male counterparts--which actually is another side effect of being second class. Those on the outside tend to show a much stronger ability to read the room and understand how the dominant group behaves and feels. Women think about feelings and attitudes as a function of survival. What would be the motivation for (most) men to be self-aware? When you run the show, you can stumble through life with little regard for others--making those in second place a lot less happy group. But if you have to respond to another group's demand, in this case those of men, the less powerful group is going to focus on what mood the men, as well as themselves, are in.

Smile and have a great Monday.

David Ezell is offering free introductory classes for people who want to transition their bodies or their ability to manage depression and anxiety holistically. Just click the link and register, as space is VERY LIMITED.