The Green Kids were recently arguing about whether poems need to rhyme.
So I interjected:
"Hey guys, listen to my poem:
"Roses are red,
"violets are blue,
"Some poems rhyme,
"but some don't."
Without missing a beat, Levi Green retorts:
"Hey Tatty, wanna hear my poem?
"Roses are red,
"Violets are blue,
"Some poems don't rhyme
"but some do."
Good one, Levi.
Monday, June 27, 2016
From the Mouths of Babes...
Sholom (age 6) explains traffic light colors to Meir (age 4):
"Red means stop, green means go, and yellow means go faster."
(presumably based on observing dad's driving)
"Red means stop, green means go, and yellow means go faster."
(presumably based on observing dad's driving)
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Israexit!
It’s bad enough we stayed in this unequitable and abusive marriage
all these years, but now it’s high time to leave! Why should we subjugate
ourselves to the absurd notion that our nationhood is dependent on the phony
favor of foreign powers in New York City, or Brussels or where ever!?
Israexit! That’s right. Time for Israel to exit the
so-called “United Nations” once and for all. It’s all a façade. There’s no
unity. It’s all about crony corruption and convenient Israel scapegoating. The
only thing that unites these poor excuse for nations is their hatred of Israel. So why should
Israel stay?
Besides for exiting the UN, Israel needs to divorce itself
from the incorrigible lie of Palestinianism and “occupation.” Judea and Samaria are Jewish ancestral lands,
inhabited by indigenous Jews from time immemorial until today. And will always remain so. If so-called
Palestinians can’t stomach that, then they are welcome to leave. Perhaps world
leaders can absorb a couple million more Arab refugees. We can call it Palexit.
Where’s your hospitality, Mr. Obama?
Some “pundits” say an Israexit will cause financial
instability. But since when is economics more important than security and life
itself? So we’ll have fewer trading partners… but at least we’ll have defensible
borders, and safe city streets, pizza shops, bus stations, preschools...
This dubious union with the United Nations (and EU, UK &
US et al) has caused us to become disunited with our own, marginalizing our
fellow Israelites by dubbing them as “settlers” and treating them as inferiors.
But toward bloodthirsty Islamic gangsters we are urged to practice “restraint,”
while Jewish blood flows in the streets, all at the cynical dictates of some
rogue and bellicose hypocrites called the United Nations. What has become of our independence? We
surrendered it to a false notion that a union of foreign nations care about our
survival and safety. We have become co-dependents to an inimical “Family of
Nations” who is not our family and will never be.
So let’s exit once and for all.
While we’re at it, let’s exit Exile altogether and proceed
to the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach tzidkeinu! It’s time for
the Israexodus, and the ultimate Israedemption of our people from four corners
of globe!
And then, the whole world will experience true unity, as it has been foretold by our prophet Isaiah (2:2):
And it shall be at the end of the days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be firmly established at the top of the mountains, and it shall be raised above the hills, and all the nations shall stream to it.
And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths," for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And he (Moshiach) shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
"O house of Jacob, come and let us go in the light of the Lord."
But until that glorious time, Israel stands alone among the nations. As the wicked prophet Bilaam attested (Numbers 24:9):
From Israel's very beginning, I see them as mountain peaks; they are a nation who dwells alone, and are not reckoned among the nations...
PS: It’s worth pointing out that none of the UN member states recognize Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem. In fact, more than one out of every six UN member states (17%) refuse to recognize Israel’s existence period. Who needs it? The UN is heading down the same path to irrelevance as the ill-fated League of Nations.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Reflections on the "Skin Gap" video
Someone recently sent me a video entitled "The Skin Gap: The Most Pervasive Gender Inequality You've Never Heard Of," produced by "Jew in the City."
It was well-done and is a worthwhile video to watch. However, it only skims the surface of the gender gap that exists in modern fashion. Hopefully, it will begin a long overdue conversation about the messages that popular culture is sending women. (I have wished to write on this sorely-neglected topic for years but felt somewhat awkward. Now that the public dialogue has begun, I'll share my two cents)
Here is the video, followed by the letter I sent to its producer.
Dear City Jew,
In today's confusing world of trans-dressing and identity dysphoria, a video like that might be misconstrued as advocating for skimpier or more contemporarily feminine styles of dress for males so as to “close the gap.” Surely that was not your intention, but just pointing it out. I hope that all viewers gleaned the intended message from your otherwise terrific burlesque. Thanks for expressing this message in such a humorous yet provocative way.
However, your exclusive focus on skin per se presents a somewhat superficial, skin-deep perspective on the "gender gap," if you will. Your exposé falls a bit short at the hem.
It's not just that culture dictates that knees, elbows, shoulders, collar bones, abdomens, belly buttons, etc., be bared and exhibited. It's not just the show of epidermis.
It's much more pervasive than that. Modern women’s apparel reflects a ubiquitous societal pressure to spotlight and objectify the female body, bare, opaque or otherwise. It’s the tightness, for starters.
Even the women's clothes that are meant to provide covering tend to be suggestive of shape and contour.
Compare an average pair of men's jeans to a woman's jeans. The latter is significantgly more tight-fitting, virtually clinging to the skin. Of course, this highlights the shape of the thigh itself, for example. Not only the thigh, but often the buttocks and crotch too! Sheesh… is nothing off limits?
The same is true with regards to the upper body, and even more so. The "gender gap" is blatantly evident, not only if there's excessive skin exposure. It's often the tightness of the shirt that emphasizes precise shape and contour of the very body parts that visibly identify someone as female, for mammals, at least.
In fact, skin-tight apparel is arguably more risqué than skimpy clothing, because it suggests the precise shape of something that is ostensibly meant to be covered, and rightfully so.
Although we are starting to see somewhat tighter-fitting styles of men's clothing too, the gap is huge and out of proportions.
I can’t imagine that tight-legged jeans are anywhere nearly as comfortable as a roomier pair. Much like high-heeled footwear that serve only aesthetic purposes at the sacrifice of comfort and utility. Perhaps there’s value in appearing taller that justifies the discomfort of high heels. Is exhibiting the shape of one’s legs worth the discomfort of tight pants?
The word I used above is "suggestive." Think about what that word means. What is a wearer trying to suggest when purposely or unwittingly silhouetting the nether part of her torso and thighs?
Since when does a self-respecting person welcome any random passerby to discern the precise shape and curvature of his rear end or crotch? Or thighs or belly?
A woman generally keeps her weight a secret, or at least doesn’t advertise it. So why must she advertise her waist size?
I personally feel that tight-fitting clothes cheapens a person’s appearance. It strikes me like someone crying for attention, or demanding to be noticed. There’s an implied statement, and I’m struggling to figure out what that statement is.
The precise and unambiguous shapeliness of certain parts of another person’s body is really none of my business, whether bare or opaque. When I see someone dressing that way in public, I feel like commenting in modern acrostic parlance: “TFS” (“thanks for sharing”) or better yet, “WTMI” (“way too much information.” Why must I be privy to the exact form of your private (hence covered) body parts?
But apparently, trend-setting females of our society and their clothiers seem to feel otherwise. Our culture promotes a style of dress (or lack thereof) that not only attracts attention, but in a blaring yet unspoken way, invites voyeuristic curiosity.
Is the tight or scanty garment intended be make its wearer attractive, or seductive?
It's almost as though modern society beckons the woman to “show her goods" and put her body on display. Is that all she has to show for herself?
Indeed, modern fashion serves to showcase and exteriorize a woman’s body. And that’s the bare naked truth.
Where are the egalitarians? Why aren’t they demanding that we “level the playing field” and make women’s clothes equally as comfortable and loose-fitting as their male counterparts?
I know you weren’t trying to cover up or (mini) skirt the issue of suggestive clothing, but it might be worthwhile to remind your viewers that the so-called “Skin Gap” is not limited to skin. The dress discrepancy between the sexes is manifest not only in the low-cut and sleeveless, but also in the full-length and the long-sleeved, as you’d surely concur.
Perhaps in your sequel film, you can place your male actor in a leotard, or better yet, in a translucent leotard, on a cold day.
Thank you again for calling attention to this absurd inequality that has become a modern-day emperor’s new clothes, or shall I say, the “empress’ new clothes?” (And who's the empress trying to impress?)
Sincerely,
M. Green
(A Jew from the Suburb)
It was well-done and is a worthwhile video to watch. However, it only skims the surface of the gender gap that exists in modern fashion. Hopefully, it will begin a long overdue conversation about the messages that popular culture is sending women. (I have wished to write on this sorely-neglected topic for years but felt somewhat awkward. Now that the public dialogue has begun, I'll share my two cents)
Here is the video, followed by the letter I sent to its producer.
Dear City Jew,
In today's confusing world of trans-dressing and identity dysphoria, a video like that might be misconstrued as advocating for skimpier or more contemporarily feminine styles of dress for males so as to “close the gap.” Surely that was not your intention, but just pointing it out. I hope that all viewers gleaned the intended message from your otherwise terrific burlesque. Thanks for expressing this message in such a humorous yet provocative way.
However, your exclusive focus on skin per se presents a somewhat superficial, skin-deep perspective on the "gender gap," if you will. Your exposé falls a bit short at the hem.
It's not just that culture dictates that knees, elbows, shoulders, collar bones, abdomens, belly buttons, etc., be bared and exhibited. It's not just the show of epidermis.
It's much more pervasive than that. Modern women’s apparel reflects a ubiquitous societal pressure to spotlight and objectify the female body, bare, opaque or otherwise. It’s the tightness, for starters.
Even the women's clothes that are meant to provide covering tend to be suggestive of shape and contour.
Compare an average pair of men's jeans to a woman's jeans. The latter is significantgly more tight-fitting, virtually clinging to the skin. Of course, this highlights the shape of the thigh itself, for example. Not only the thigh, but often the buttocks and crotch too! Sheesh… is nothing off limits?
The same is true with regards to the upper body, and even more so. The "gender gap" is blatantly evident, not only if there's excessive skin exposure. It's often the tightness of the shirt that emphasizes precise shape and contour of the very body parts that visibly identify someone as female, for mammals, at least.
In fact, skin-tight apparel is arguably more risqué than skimpy clothing, because it suggests the precise shape of something that is ostensibly meant to be covered, and rightfully so.
Although we are starting to see somewhat tighter-fitting styles of men's clothing too, the gap is huge and out of proportions.
I can’t imagine that tight-legged jeans are anywhere nearly as comfortable as a roomier pair. Much like high-heeled footwear that serve only aesthetic purposes at the sacrifice of comfort and utility. Perhaps there’s value in appearing taller that justifies the discomfort of high heels. Is exhibiting the shape of one’s legs worth the discomfort of tight pants?
The word I used above is "suggestive." Think about what that word means. What is a wearer trying to suggest when purposely or unwittingly silhouetting the nether part of her torso and thighs?
Since when does a self-respecting person welcome any random passerby to discern the precise shape and curvature of his rear end or crotch? Or thighs or belly?
A woman generally keeps her weight a secret, or at least doesn’t advertise it. So why must she advertise her waist size?
I personally feel that tight-fitting clothes cheapens a person’s appearance. It strikes me like someone crying for attention, or demanding to be noticed. There’s an implied statement, and I’m struggling to figure out what that statement is.
The precise and unambiguous shapeliness of certain parts of another person’s body is really none of my business, whether bare or opaque. When I see someone dressing that way in public, I feel like commenting in modern acrostic parlance: “TFS” (“thanks for sharing”) or better yet, “WTMI” (“way too much information.” Why must I be privy to the exact form of your private (hence covered) body parts?
But apparently, trend-setting females of our society and their clothiers seem to feel otherwise. Our culture promotes a style of dress (or lack thereof) that not only attracts attention, but in a blaring yet unspoken way, invites voyeuristic curiosity.
Is the tight or scanty garment intended be make its wearer attractive, or seductive?
It's almost as though modern society beckons the woman to “show her goods" and put her body on display. Is that all she has to show for herself?
Indeed, modern fashion serves to showcase and exteriorize a woman’s body. And that’s the bare naked truth.
Where are the egalitarians? Why aren’t they demanding that we “level the playing field” and make women’s clothes equally as comfortable and loose-fitting as their male counterparts?
I know you weren’t trying to cover up or (mini) skirt the issue of suggestive clothing, but it might be worthwhile to remind your viewers that the so-called “Skin Gap” is not limited to skin. The dress discrepancy between the sexes is manifest not only in the low-cut and sleeveless, but also in the full-length and the long-sleeved, as you’d surely concur.
Perhaps in your sequel film, you can place your male actor in a leotard, or better yet, in a translucent leotard, on a cold day.
Thank you again for calling attention to this absurd inequality that has become a modern-day emperor’s new clothes, or shall I say, the “empress’ new clothes?” (And who's the empress trying to impress?)
Sincerely,
M. Green
(A Jew from the Suburb)