In light of the Occupy Wall Street movement, I got to thinking about the book The Devil Wears Prada and the movie based on it. As is often the case, the book was much better than the movie.
Maybe this is sour grapes, but I say as both a writer and a reader that the book’s ending was weak. (Spoiler alert) The main character, Andy, finally tells her boss, the monstrous and superficial fashion magazine editor, “Fuck you” and that was pretty much it. The movie’s ending was, alas, even weaker, with the editor getting humanized through a divorce, which did nothing to add interest to her character as a villain IMHO, and in the end being a positive force in Andy’s life.
Here is an ending that I think would have been more satisfying.
I would have had Andy tell off her boss *good and proper,* not just a simple “fuck you.” Since everyone in the industry hates Miranda the editor so much, Andy could have gotten any magazine job she wanted, and Miranda’s enemies would bring down Miranda’s editorship. How the mighty have fallen! Now she has to get a low-paying, entry level job and gets a taste of her own medicine. Or perhaps she could do a 180 and join the Peace Corps.

Can you believe the above pic is a cake?!
Sex and the City brought it out of the (erm) closet, but I’m sick to death of hearing the stereotype that women love shoes, specifically expensive ones. OK, I get it: we’re the fair sex, and looking good is important to us, and we appreciate beauty in objects, but I think this shoe stereotype is particularly offensive. It perpetuates the idea that females are shallow and materialistic, and furthers the idea that we are gold-diggers so that we can use men’s money for material pursuits such as shopping. People seem to have the idea that women and girls are silly and do silly, useless things. The amassing of designer shoes seems to epitomize this.

I was more than once criticized as a writer trying to get more money: “You just want it to buy shoes.” I’ve heard the same thing about abortion: women just want to abort their pregnancies so that they can afford to buy shoes. I’m sure.

Girls are encouraged at a very early age to be into this stuff. I have seen at least one children’s book teaching girls how to love shopping for shoes. Just what we need, right?

Not all women are shoe-obsessed, or even shopping-obsessed. True, many are, and many of you might say, “Well, if the shoe fits…” True enough, maybe this is one of those times when the stereotype is accurate, but I’m still sick of seeing it everywhere. I’ve seen the shoe fetish (fetish in every sense of the word) in the form of cookies, umbrellas, Christmas tree ornaments, and tzotzkes. All hail the high heel!

Tangentially, I’ve heard of rich women getting surgery on their feet so that they can wear designer shoes better. Hello, Darwin Award in the making!

It’s telling how Israel’s enemies, by which here I really am targeting American liberals (of which I am one), charge Israel with racism. If they knew a bit more about the country, they would find it difficult to maintain this accusation.
First off, let me say that Islam is a religion, not a race. Also, most Arabs/Muslims are not “browner” than most Israelis. Many people have remarked on the irony that Israelis and Arabs look so much alike.
Not all Jews in Israel are blond-haired, blue-eyed Europeans. Like Muslims, Jews can be of any race. If you don’t believe me about Israel’s diversity, please go over and see for yourself.
(Tangentially, while we’re on the subject of racism, it’s worth noting that racism is serious in the Muslim world. Sadly, blacks would have no relief moving to the Muslim world and may be shooting themselves in the feet.)
If your real accusation is that Israel is unfair to Muslims, than “racism” is still not the correct charge and you’re only calling it “racism” out of ignorance. I need to repeat it because it keeps coming up: Islam is a religion, not a race.
Let’s look at how Israel behaves about race. One concrete episode comes to mind.
In the 1980s and 1990s, in the spirit of bringing Jews sanctuary in Israel (which is what I see as the purpose of Israel), Israel’s government, on its own dime and by its own initiation, airlifted Ethiopia’s Jews to come live there. We are talking about 120,000 blacks. In addition to footing the bill to bring these black Jews to give them a better life, the government paid for immigrant absorption centers to feed, shelter and find employment for Ethiopian olim (Hebrew for new immigrants to Israel).
On its own dime. By its own initiation. To 120,000 blacks to live with them.
Has any other country in the world done something like this? I’m asking non-rhetorically. I don’t know what the opposite of “racism” is, but that’s about as far from “racism” as you can get.
The purpose of Israel is to provide a sanctuary for Jews. Put bluntly, we needed a place to be safe from everyone else.

I read an interesting book, A Chicken’s Guide to Talking Turkey With Your Kids About Sex, not realizing that it had a Christian slant. Since I don’t have kids (although will soon inherit a step-daughter), you might wonder why. I have long studied sexuality and am a strong advocate of sex-positive sex education for children AND adults, and am greatly troubled by the ignorance and counter-productive ideas out there.

Anywho, the authors advised girls (the book was aimed at kids, as well) that guys didn’t find it sexy when girls wore skimpy clothing such as that epitomized by Britney Spears’s influence. First, you think someone should have alerted Madison Avenue. Next, are they advising girls to wear more conservative clothes in order to attract boys? Are they saying that guys really do find looser clothing that covers more to be sexier on girls and women? Since the authors thumped modesty throughout the book, this strikes me as a strange double message, but that’s religion for you.

I am by no means a prude, but I am troubled by the trend of young girls wearing, for lack of a better word, slutty clothing. When I was a kid, there was no such thing as thongs for children. I essentially wore jeans and t-shirts like everyone else and I don’t remember anyone caring about “skinny” jeans or sexy shirts. I expect any girl who wore them would have been subject to ridicule: “You’re trying to attract guys, huh?”

Once I wore a sleeveless summer dress in third grade and the kids commented, someone negatively, that I was showing my shoulders. Shameless! I’m not saying we should force our daughters to wear birkas, but there must be a healthy medium someplace.

In any case, what did the Xian authors want, exactly? Modesty for the sake of modesty, or modesty for the sake of attracting boys?

Sometimes being female is a very confusing minefield…

I’d like to know what my male readers think with regards to modest vs. skimpy clothing.

Oh, one more thing: the authors advocated to fathers that they should personally measure their daughters for bras. I would rather have drunk poison. At least there might have been an antidote for that.