Monday, October 29, 2007

Keep Your Friends Close...

And your enemies online.

Sick of the sappy online network friendship crap? Plotting revenge on an ex-friend? You don't have to play nice anymore, thanks to a new Facebook application, Enemybook.

Differentiate your "real" friends from "online" friends (or outright enemies). Your target need not accept your enemy request for the listing to appear. And thanks to a handy online menu, you can define your hate in detail.
enemybook_screenshot2.JPG
See what others are saying about Enemybook and its Friendster twin, Snubster. Or listen to an NPR interview with Enemybook's creator.

Or if you don't have any friends, just create your own profile on Hatebook.
Hatebook
Let the hate flow!

Topless Men: A Fashion Prank

Just brilliant. A hilarious response to advertising.



The old British dame's closing commentary is really cute.

Featured on the oh-so-delightful Manolo Shoe Blog.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

About Tattoos

I don't want one. I really dislike the idea of permanently marking my body. My past experiences/past selves are already etched in my psyche, and I prefer to give myself room for change by keeping my skin tabula rasa.

But I do love beautiful, individual works of art.

(LOVE the concept here, even though the execution of the hand is slightly distorted.)

Thanks to a project on tattoos last year, I've become a walking paradox: a tattoo-less tattoo snob. I find the mindset fascinating, this urge to gather indelible art on one's skin. A collage of life-lessons, heiroglyphs of a personal mythology, a revelation of the inner self. Depending on placement (or mode of dress), tattoos aren't always intended for public consumption. Then the skin becomes an intimate canvas of secrets.

For centuries, tribal societies all over the world have used permanent skin-marking systems to signify social status, identity, belief system. Some say that tattoos can also be traced back to Europe's Middle Ages. Pilgrims to the Holy Land supposedly obtained a tattoo at each religious shrine they visited. In a world with no photos, no blogs, no proof beyond story and word, a mark was necessary to prove they had actually been there.

Although tattoos were accepted around the world, Americans still rejected them. To them, tattoos were the mark of rebels and outlaws, a rejection of societal norms. Yet today, they're considered trendy* and have gained acceptance in the main stream (especially among youth). What spurred this change? Tattoo reality shows are now commonplace. Tattoo blogs, societies, and online photo albums abound. In fact, it's not unheard of for mothers and daughters to go out and get matching tattoos. So why have Americans recently accepted tattoos?

Is it a result of globalization, the Internet, and faster international transportation, coalescing in a better understanding of other cultures? Possibly. Is this a rebellion of a younger generation against their parents? Not likely, given that the Woodstock Generation was largely defined by rebellion. Indeed, perhaps we're seeing more tattoo acceptance because parents who grew up in that era are more open to such things.

I have another theory, and it comes from the Middle Ages. At that time, works of art that taught personal human truths were protected in cathedrals as paintings or sculptures or stained glass, and whoever walked into those structures learned from them. But people don't stay in one place anymore. Our society is becoming nomadic (due to the way one builds a career these days by moving around frequently), and people seek ways to bring their life lessons with them. They crave something more permanent, and the only thing we're guaranteed to take with us in this life is the body. A living cathedral to a lifetime's lessons, which are portrayed in stunning works of art.







*Or they can remain an empty fashion statement. Butterflies, roses, arrow'd hearts and other cliches scream I'm a vapid trend-whore with no personality. Luckily, real artists have already raised the bar even for these, with gorgeous, evocative tattoos.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Guilty Before Proven Innocent

This summer, the WSJ published an article on how children in America are being taught to fear men. And another about how men are forced to cope with this social trend.

Fears about child sexual abuse have quietly evolved into a social poison. While child abuse is indeed a serious issue, is it worth alienating half the population over?

(This Virginia public service ad elicited controversy from men's rights groups, who pointed out the profiling inherent in the message which evokes a paranoia of men & fathers based solely on a "feeling.")

The WSJ articles sparked a chain of articulate reactions in the blogosphere. The main statistic points out that 89% of child sex abusers are men. And naturally, parents want to play the percentages to protect their kids. But as one writer responded, "Most predators are men, sure, but most men are not predators."

Online discussions ranged from men confessing how they actively avoid interacting with children for fear of suspicion. Men feeling helpless when approached by a lost child at a shopping mall, even refusing to help just to protect themselves. Male soccer coaches advised to never touch players, even injured ones. And it's not just single men under suspicion. Fathers who play with their own kids at the playground get dirty looks from nearby women. And god help you if you're a dad who needs to change his toddler's dirty diaper at the shopping mall - someone may actually call the cops.

Even worse, boys and girls are increasingly unable to develop healthy relationships with (and reactions to) males as a result of this conditioning. One blogger wrote, "The result is that some children come to view any unfamiliar man as a potential evildoer. These kinds of panic-stricken protections seem to do more harm than good; there's great potential to limit and damage kids' relationships with men (and vice versa) while doing little to actually protect against abuses."

A few writers pointed out that teaching children to fear men breeds an overconfidence in females. Especially in an era when female teachers are soliciting sexual relationships with male students, and statistics show that females are far more likely to murder their own children. But certainly, teaching children to fear females is equally perposterous. As another writer pointed out, "If we teach our children to fear everything, they won't develop the radar to know when something is actually wrong."

That's the biggest problem with the current attitude towards men. This isn't caution. This is a witch hunt. Men and boys are being taught that masculinity is not only unvalued in American society, it's vilified. The proof is in our education system: the high school graduation rates of boys have dropped dramatically, and fewer men than women are going to college. Only 9% of teachers are male, dropped from 18% in 1981.

There's fewer male role models, and boys are hurting. One blogger pointed out that because of the current environment, young males are forced to find social alternatives, groups where they can be accepted - such as gangs. And girls are hurting from having fewer opportunities to develop healthy relationships with men. And families are hurting as fathers are sent the message to never show affection, to be distant and unfamiliar.

A small response has already begun: male mentorship in the form of a book.

But is this a step in the right direction, or merely a thumb in the dam? There's got to be a better solution than this.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Danger for Dove

Dove better be careful.
Right on the heels of the Onslaught release, feminists are learning the inconvenient truth of Unilever's relationships to other brands besides Dove.

In the consumer's eyes, this information turns sincerity into hypocrisy.


Dove has delivered a groundbreaking emancipation to women in the last few years. Let's hope it's not completely ruined.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Welcome to My World

An amusing commentary on bad ads. Young consumers are far more savvy than advertising gives them credit for.


There's an entire series of these. In each one, a girl holds up a magazine ad and explains why she thinks it's illogical, insulting, vapid, boring, etc. They're pretty funny, and definitely worth a look: www.3iying.tv
Ad Rants and Jezebel have both posted reviews.

My goal: make communications that don't contribute to this clutter.