Keeping Abreast or Missing The Point?

The Times reports on an interesting psychology experiment about breasts and work whose results seem to confirm received wisdom: that men focus on women’s sexual characteristics, not their abilities. Well, duh.

But that’s not the conclusion the writer draws – no, she implies that lack of career success is our fault for not having perfect tits.

Participants were shown one of four videotapes featuring the same actress giving a speech on careers.

Men and women were asked to rank her performance based on positive and negative characteristics. In fact the only difference between each film was the size of the presenter’s bra, representing an A, B, C or D cup.

While no bias was found among the female viewers, the men ranked the actress significantly higher on all levels when her breasts were represented as “just right”, that is, medium sized. Men evaluated the same woman less positively when she projected too much or too little mammary mass.

It is not clear whether men are aware of this bias. Other studies suggest that men prefer no particular breast size, but are primarily attracted to proportionality in women, with a specific hip to bust to waist ratio.

Women, on the other hand, tend to overestimate the size of breasts that men prefer, ranking the size they believe men desire as higher than the one that men choose.

[…]

Another interesting highlight of the Central Florida study was the actress’s own reaction to her growing bosom. As she moved up the alphabet in terms of cup size, she felt more self-conscious about her breasts and more worried about her performance.

I most certainly don’t agree with the tack the Times writer, Elizabeth Squires, takes on the study: that this means women should learn to hide their breasts if they want to get on.

Nobody wants to talk about breast etiquette at work, but everyone has an opinion. Some workers find breast displays so unsettling that one female boss was warned that her cleavage could constitute sexual harassment of her male colleagues.

The Florida research shows that in order to rise up the career ladder it is probably best not to draw attention to your chest.

Now as a matter of everyday etiquette in a globalised world where you can’t take anyone’s cultural norms for granted, then not sticking your tits in someone’s face, or your asscrack or your thong, or your stinking male atmpits, seems only sensible and courteous.

But this article’s subtext – be modest, camouflage yourself. pretend you’re not female – applies only to women and not only that women whose present breast size is over or under the optimum. Forget success, freaks of nature, or get a burka. But if you have perfect, pert, medium sized breasts, then it’s wahay! and up the career ladder for you.

Not a word in the article about why it is that men are socialised to treat simple secondary sexual charactistics as more indicative of character, intellect and competence than actual character, intellect or competence, oh no – once again, it’s all women’s own fault, for not being perfect. Again.

Which is odd, coming from a woman with a breast-positive book to promote.

Did she really not see what that experiment was also saying, or is it possible, giving her the benefit of the doubt, that her words were truncated by an overzealous editor and there’s a missing paragraph? If it’s the former, I don’t hold out much hope for the book.

If You’re At All Sensitive About Your Masculinity, Look Away Now

Proof that parties, intoxicants, temper and vulnerable external genitals don’t mix: I don’t even have balls, except in the purely metaphorical sense, yet I’m wincing at this BBC Merseyside story:


Yes, this is a real product.

Woman jailed for testicle attack
A woman who ripped off her ex-boyfriend’s testicle with her bare hands has been sent to prison.

Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage when Geoffrey Jones, 37, rejected her advances at the end of a house party, Liverpool Crown Court heard.

She pulled off his left testicle and tried to swallow it, before spitting it out. A friend handed it back to Mr Jones saying: “That’s yours.”

Monti admitted wounding and was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

‘Pulled hard’

Sentencing Monti, Judge Charles James said it was “a very serious injury” and that Monti was not acting in self defence.

The court heard that Mr Jones had ended his long-term but “open relationship” with Monti towards the end of May last year.

The pair remained on good terms and on 30 May she picked him up from a party in Crosby and went back for drinks with friends at Mr Jones’s house.

An argument ensued and Mr Jones said there was a struggle between them.

In his statement, Mr Jones said she grabbed his genitals and “pulled hard”.

He added: “That caused my underpants to come off and I found I was completely naked and in excruciating pain.”

The court heard that a friend saw Monti put Mr Jones’s testicle into her mouth and try to swallow it.

She choked and spat it back into her hand before the friend grabbed it and gave it back to Mr Jones. Doctors were unable to re-attach the organ.

More…

Comment of The Day, Bloated Plutocracy Edition

Sadly, No reports on a US economist and academic, Bryan Caplan, who’s come out of the closet as a plutocrat and advocate of aristocracy. His suggestion that the grant of voting rights should require an economc literacy test prompted this comment:

D. Aristophanes said,

June 15, 2007 at 22:33

TEST OF ECONOMIC LITERACY

Question 1:
When writing a letter to the CEO of a major American corporation asking for advice on the best countries to use for stashing your vast fortune in an offshore holding account, what is the appropriate form of address?

A) Dear Mr. Knight
B) To the concerns of the CEO
C) Yo Phil!
D) I don’t know, as I’ve never been faced with a situation like this before, and thus allowing me to vote would cause Thomas Jefferson to spin in his grave.

He he.

MATH SECTION

Question 1:

If Stuart has three semesters left at the Philips Exeter Academy in which to raise his GPA to a 2.3 in order to meet the legacy standards at Yale, and Jill must stable her roan and miss three riding sessions during her tour of Tuscany and portions of Switzerland … how much should one tip the valet at Per Se in midtown, provided he isn’t too impudent or unpresentable?

Exaggeration? I think not.

You only have to read the New York Social Diary at the Venice Biennale:where the denizens of the new Gilded Age meet to make deals and broker mergers behind the conspicuous show and one-upmanship

Photographing completed, the entire Bullock party which included her public relations consultant Couri Hay, photographer Patrick McMullan, Liliana Cavendish, nine or ten in all, boarded her hired boat (which she kept around the clock) and began an odyssey of party-going which included a visit to an island for a “Prada” party which was over by the time we arrived, then on to another party in a restaurant located in a restored warehouse in a boatyard where there were quite a few Americans dining including collector Peter Brant and his wife Stephanie Seymour, Adam Lindemann and his fiancee Amalia Dayan.

[…] I am also struck by the awesome presence of modern material wealth alongside the treasures of architectural antiquities — the huge private yachts moored along the docks in certain parts — here to partake of the excitement of the contemporary art world.

The international art scene as demonstrated by this week in Venice is now a living, breathing mass commentary on the state of western civilization or what is now known as “the developed countries” with its grand excess of new super-wealth and a kind of baroque consumerism (acquisition of art). Considering all of the elements of nature and international politics that are currently confronting us, Venice and its history serves as a perfect venue of no small irony for this modern enterprise known as the art business and the foibles of the human condition which continue to challenge us.

And oh, the foibles of the human condition which continue to challenge the rich, poor things. We should all have such foibles.

There’s so much new unregulated money sloshing about at the moment that as in the nineteenth century, the arrivistes are desperately seeking social acceptance by voraciously gobbling up guides on how to spend their money, like this from the Robb Report Luxury Portal, Wealth Management Section:

Family: Hiring The Help
Liz Roberts
04/27/2003

Vincent Minuto is on the phone with a New York art dealer, and he is fuming. The owner of Hampton Domestics, an employment agency with offices in Sag Harbor, New York City, and Palm Beach, checks off the caller’s requirements: She wants a private chef on call four days a week—but to work and receive payment for only two—to prepare separate meals for her and her husband, who naturally have different tastes in food. The going rate for a chef’s service is $300 to $350 daily, says Minuto, who has worked as a chef, but the woman is willing to pay only $200. “Honey, wake up and smell the coffee; the slaves were freed over 100 years ago,” he says after he has hung up the phone, blaming the woman’s unreasonable expectations on what he calls SWS, or Sudden Wealth Syndrome. “Old money—they understand,” Minuto adds with a sigh. “They’re cheap to begin with, but they respect you as a human.” He should know. His first catering client was Gloria Vanderbilt. Since then, Minuto has managed estates for some of America’s prominent families.

Handily this 7-page guide for nouveau riches – though Roberts won’t use such a declasse expression, she calls it Sudden Wealth Acquisition Syndrome – includes a helpful list of all the many and various classes of servants:

Who’s Who in the House

Before contacting a domestic placement agency, you will want to possess some knowledge of the various staff positions and their corresponding job descriptions. The Lindquist Group uses these common titles.

· Butler—supervises household staff
· Caretaker—responsible for indoor and outdoor maintenance
· Chef/Cook—prepares meals for family and social events
· Couple—typically a husband and wife who are responsible for duties outside and inside the home, respectively
· Day Worker—performs daily tasks such as cleaning and laundry
· Estate Manager (also house manager or majordomo)—manages staff in one or more homes
· Governess—cares for children and manages homework, play dates, clothes shopping
· Household Supervisor—full-time position responsible for cooking, cleaning, running errands, and overseeing additional staff
· Lady’s Maid/Valet—keeps the homeowners’ clothing in order, helps them dress and undress, draws the evening baths
· Mother’s Helper—assists with child care and performs light housework
· Nanny—coordinates children’s activities, prepares their meals, keeps play areas tidy
· Personal Assistant (also social secretary)—manages social and professional demands on employer

It might almost’ve been lifted straight from Mrs. Beeton.

Under the proposed Caplan regime no-one on that list would have any say in the political system that maintained them in servitude. But then, that is actually the plan. At least he’s honest about it, unlike some, many of whom would self-describe as liberal, and who’d like the same political arrangement but with a few more crumbs of charitable largesse dispensed to the have-nots to assuage their consciences…. but only if they get to dress up for the fundraising gala.

I tell you, it’s enough to turn you socialist.

Paris Hilton is a victim of her class

Paris Hilton wearing this season's squad car design

[By Martin Wisse, X-posted from Wis[s]e Words, pic added by me]

By all reports Paris Hilton is a despicable human being: shallow, vain, racist, spiteful and crude. Rich from the day she was born, she never has had to lift a finger to get what she wanted, she never had to work on anything she didn’t want to and she never had to struggle for the kind of opportunities most of us would be lucky to get only once in our lifes. She’s the walking proof that those who have can only get more. Yet what has she ever done to deserve the hatred unleashed on her, especially after she got sentenced to fortyfive days in jail for driving without a license? Compared to other members of her class she’s practically a saint. She hasn’t bought up perfectly sound companies and gutted them for a profit, destroying thousands of jobs in the process, she hasn’t started any wars or profited from them, she wasn’t responsible for Enron or Worldcom, had nothing to do with Katrina or any of the thousands of disasters normal members of her class leave in their wake.

Which is why she, According to David Walsh at the World Socialist Web Site, makes for such a good scapegoat. Because she may be rich, but she isn’t powerful; an outsider not connected to the real powers in the land, the people running the US government and the US businesses. As Walsh puts it:

To help retard the development of a rational opposition to the current political and social state of affairs, the media cultivates an artificial hostility toward much easier targets. A seething but politically confused population is fed victims, sacrificial lambs, so to speak, while the real criminals go about their business.

The aim, conscious or otherwise, is to make sorting out what is actually taking place in the country more difficult by encouraging a facile and undemanding (and perhaps temporarily cathartic) outrage against a Paris Hilton or some other such figure. The population is intended to feel, falsely, that its cause has been served and blows have been delivered against the rich and powerful, when all that’s happened is a young woman guilty of a misdemeanor has gone to jail for a month or more.

By offering Paris Hilton as a figure to hate, attention is deferred from the systemic failures of capitalism unto the moral failings of an individual. If we believe that the problem with Paris Hitlon and others like her having personal fortunes the size of a small country’s annual budget while thousands of others have to sleep under bridges and eat out of garbage cans is not that a system which allows such gross inequalities is wrong and immoral, but only that some people cannot handle wealth well, then we will accept that others with great wealth but the tact not to flaunt it so much, do deserve their wealth and we accept that the system as it exists is right and proper.

WTF Is This? Lisa Simpson Gives An Olympic Blowjob

Well, I do know what it is – but what the hell is does it mean? The new London 2012 Olympic logo:

It looks like nothing so much as a mutilated jigsaw, and I fail to see the symbolism in any part of it. Nothing about it says London, or Britain. or sport for that matter. If this is an indication of how the whole sporting enterprise (and the emphasis is on the enterprise, rather than the sport) is going to be run, we’re in for a disaster of epic proportions.

UPDATE: Someone who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty said earlier that it looks like Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob. Well, now you mention it…

UPDATE II: Looks like a groundswell is building already to junk the logo. Add your name to the ‘logo must go’ petition here.

[Query to afpers – is that the Jonathan Ellis sponsoring that petition? If so, for once we are in political harmony.]

UPDATE III: Oh dear. It didn’t take long for the ‘leet ‘shoppers to start having a go. From b3ta:

This is going to run and run, if you’ll excuse the pun…

UPDATE IV

And indeed it is running and running. The latest is that the animated logo ad causes epileptic seizures. Oh dear….