Peggy Drexler is a research psychologist, documentary producer and the author of "Our Fathers, Ourselves: Daughters, Fathers, and the Changing American Family" and "Raising Boys Without Men." The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. View more opinion on CNN.
(CNN) What to make of the digital altering of the yearbook photos of more than 80 girls at one Florida high school?
Kylie Jenner Flaunts Massive Cleavage, Upstages Kendall at Tequila Launch Party - The Hollywood
So we have to assume that it's a feeling of competition that keeps them working around the clock and striving to amass more wealth.
But love can manifest in many different ways -- and sometimes, Kylie and Kendall express their affection by out-grinding each other.
Kylie recently trademarked " Kylie Swim by Kylie Jenner, " so you can expect to see a line of swimsuits from the 23-year-old in the very near future.
Kylie had her billionaire status revoked by Forbes last year, and insiders say she hopes the new venture will allow her to re-enter the ten-figure club.
For her part, Kendall has launched a tequila brand that could be the biggest project of her career.
Of course, for that to happen, she'll need to figure out a way to handle the allegations of cultural insensitivity and appropriation that have surrounded the brand since day one.
But Kendall is no stranger to controversy, and judging by the pics from this week's official launch party, it seems she was supremely unbothered by the controversy surrounding her new booze.
In keeping with the agriculture-inspired motif of her brand, Kendall rocked a casual, peasant-inspired look for the big night.
According to Page Six, Kylie's outfit cost about 18 grand, which we suppose is chump change when your net worth is estimated at around $900 million.
Megan Fox stuns in cleavage-baring cut-out dress on 2021 BBMA red carpet | Fox News
The 35-year-old star donned a black Mugler gown with risqué cutouts that exposed her toned stomach and cleavage.
The "Transformers" actress attended the event with her boyfriend rapper/singer Machine Gun Kelly . He wore a deconstructed black tuxedo, metallic nail polish, a mix of pearl and silver jewelry, and dyed his tongue black as well.
The couple started dating in May 2020 after meeting on the set of the upcoming movie "Midnight in the Switchgrass."
Fox revealed on Lala Kent and Randall Emmett 's podcast, " Give Them Lala ... With Randall," that she instantly had chemistry with Kelly.
"I could feel that some wild s--t was going to happen to me from that meeting, but I wasn't yet sure what," Fox admitted. "I just felt it like, deep in my soul that something was going to come from that."
"I knew right away that he was what I call a twin flame. Instead of a soul mate, a twin flame is actually where a soul has ascended into a high enough level that it can be split into two different bodies at the same time. So we're actually two halves of the same soul, I think. And I said that to him almost immediately, because I felt it right away," she added.
Fox was previously married to actor Brian Austin Green and the pair share three sons together: Noah, 8, Bodhi, 6, and Journey, 4. Green confirmed they separated last May, with Fox ultimately filing for divorce in November.
The Next Great Scandal: Photoshopped Modesty | Chronicles
There’s a new censorship scandal afoot: it involves school yearbook pictures, a little too much skin, and some lousy Photoshop skills.
Some of the girls felt “sexualized and exposed” by the digital alterations, The New York Times reported. O’Keefe said the school should “recognize that it’s making girls feel ashamed of their bodies.”
O’Keefe’s response may seem natural in the modern world of liberated sexual self-expression. But it also shows how upside down and confused that same sexualized self-expression is: modesty standards are now considered a form of sexual exploitation.
These young girls seem rather confused, not realizing that they are simply parroting society’s textbook answers, which really don’t fit their situation. The opposite of their claims is true, for how can girls feel sexualized and exposed when those photo alterations were performed in order to eliminate the very exposure that can sexualize them?
Sax credited feminist author Germaine Greer’s 1970 book The Female Eunuch for creating this problem, saying that Greer’s “main assertion—that female modesty is a consequence and manifestation of the patriarchy—has achieved the status of established fact in contemporary gender studies.” He continued:
The corollary—that female immodesty is a sign of liberation—is now widely accepted. Girls today are coming of age in a culture in which teenage girls strip off their clothes at the beach or compete in wet T-shirt contests for the amusement of teenage boys. What’s especially weird about those competitions is that both the girls and the boys seem to believe that the girls’ parading their unveiled bodies is somehow modern, hip, and contemporary.
Thus it comes as no surprise that the girls with the doctored yearbook photos would view themselves as sexualized and exposed, for the ideas advanced by Greer’s feminism have infiltrated society and turned the concept of modesty on its head, labeling true sexualization of women as a good thing, while labeling modest standards of dressing as oppressive. Sax explains:
By chastising feminine modesty as a symptom of patriarchal oppression, Greer provided support to the idea that pole dancers are liberated women. Her argument became so intrinsic to contemporary feminism that many people today don’t even know where it came from. If you even hint at an objection to ‘Girls Gone Wild,’ you may find yourself labeled as a reactionary who favors a 1950s style patriarchy.
From what I’ve seen from headlines, pretty much everyone is up in arms against the school that doctored the yearbooks to remove cleavage. I just wonder if we’re barking up the wrong tree, for as Sax implies, the more we preach liberation through minimal clothing, the more damage we will be doing to our daughters’ minds and bodies.
Simone Biles and the power of a woman's voice | COMMENTARY - Baltimore Sun
The awesomeness and Black Girl Magic that is Simone Biles had the perfect response when asked why she keeps performing such difficult moves, including the recent Yurchenko double pike: "Because I can."
She promised to keep pursuing such bold moves, despite lower scoring by judges who may be concerned about the danger of pushing to such heights, but also likely don't want Ms. Biles to get too far ahead of the rest of the field. Good for her for refusing to hold back, allow her talent to be diminished and be put in her place. She is among the female athletes who is pushing against the pigeonhole that organized sports like to stuff them in. Ms. Biles has proved she can reach new bounds — the Yurchenko double pike had never been attempted before by a women in competition — and shouldn't be punished for it. She should be elevated and celebrated.
The petite, fireball of a gymnast is giving other female athletes a lesson in fearlessly resisting the status quo, but with grace and dignity. I hope it inspires other women to speak their minds as well. A month earlier she took another stance, dropping an endorsement deal with Nike in favor of the women-friendly Athleta brand. Nike has been criticized for a toxic culture that is not supportive enough of female athletes, including not offering sufficient maternity protections until being publicly embarrassed.
"Using my voice has been very empowering for me, and I am grateful to embark on this new journey with Athleta to inspire young girls and women to do the same," she said in a statement.
Other females athletes have also discovered that empowerment. Three members of the German women's team at the recent European Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Switzerland wore unitards that covered their legs, rather than the more skin-baring ones that are typical, in a statement against "sexualization in gymnastics." Male gymnasts typically wear long pants or loose-fitting shorts; why can't women have that choice as well?
"In our opinion, every gymnast should be able to decide in which type of suit she feels most comfortable — and then do gymnastics," said Elisabeth Seitz, one of the gymnasts.
I thank all the girls and woman who have the strength to speak up — whether it be a high schooler in Florida or a high profile figure like Simone Biles. It is these voices collectively that will spark change. Incremental changes spurred by these small movements will eventually add up to broader change. At the end of the day, a new gym at a tournament is one step, but far from good enough. We must ask ourselves what the systemic equities were that existed that made it OK to give college athletes a gym no better than a high school. What is it about gymnastics that discourages women to be their best? I know Ms. Biles will not let the last question go.
Andrea K. McDaniels is The Sun's deputy editorial page editor. Please send her ideas at amcdaniels@baltsun.com . Her Twitter address is @ankwalker.
Complement control for COVID-19 | Science Immunology
Yan et al . further characterize that SARS-CoV-2-induced expression of C3 and Factor B was dependent on type I interferons, the interferon-activated JAK1/2-STAT1 signaling pathway and NF-κB RelA ( 6 ). The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduced generation of C3a, presumably by shutting off C3 and Factor B production during SARS-CoV-2 infection.
COMMENTARY: I will not be scienced! | Opinion | thetandd.com
After a year of being browbeaten by THE SCIENTISTS not to wear a mask, to wear a mask, to wear double masks, to get vaccinated and still wear a mask, our analytic overlords are still no closer to determining the tiny little issue of where this virus came from.
Recently, the widely respected science writer Nicholas Wade published an article in Medium pushing the idea that -- contrary to what "the scientists" assured us -- COVID-19 might have come from the Wuhan virology lab, not the wet markets.
According to Wade, the virologists attacking the lab theory were claiming scientific certainty for something unknowable, and at least one of them has a gigantic conflict of interest. Even at a time when "TRUST THE SCIENCE!" has become a liberal mating call, I'm shocked at the deceptions of these guys.
Kristian G. Andersen, a professor of immunology and microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute in California, was the lead author of a paper published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, claiming: "Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus."
Now, a year later, Wade says, "Dr. Andersen and his colleagues were assuring their readers of something they could not know." While Andersen claimed that two of the virus's characteristics couldn't be made in a lab, Wade describes exactly how they could be.
The second group of experts denouncing the lab theory was led by Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak got two dozen other scientists to sign a letter to The Lancet that portentously declared: "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin." Scientists, the letter said, "overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife."
I have a problem when a guy with a financial and reputational stake in a lab organizes a group of scientists to say, It's absolutely not from the lab!!! Daszak's letter concluded with what only the deeply cynical might suggest was a lie: "We declare no competing interests."
In response to the obvious question, WHY DIDN'T ANY OTHER SCIENTISTS SPEAK UP?, Wade says: "Perhaps because in today's universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community's declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency."
And of course there was the fact that Trump had floated the lab theory. Before a liberal will answer any question, he needs to know:
Timeline: How the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible - The Washington Post
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) from the start pointed to the lab's location in Wuhan, pressing China for answers, so the history books will reward him if he turns out to be right. The Trump administration also sought to highlight the lab scenario but generally could only point to vague intelligence. The Trump administration's messaging was often accompanied by anti-Chinese rhetoric that made it easier for skeptics to ignore its claims.
As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people's minds. This has led to renewed calls for a real investigation into the lab's activities before the coronavirus emerged.
Dec. 30, 2019: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issues an "urgent notice" to medical institutions in Wuhan, saying that cases of pneumonia of unknown cause have emerged from the city's Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.
Jan. 23: A Daily Mail article appears, headlined : "China built a lab to study SARS and Ebola in Wuhan — and U.S. biosafety experts warned in 2017 that a virus could 'escape' the facility that's become key in fighting the outbreak."
Jan 30: Sen. Tom Cotton, speaking at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing , says: "This coronavirus is a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl for China. But actually, it's probably worse than Chernobyl, which was localized in its effect. The coronavirus could result in a global pandemic." He adds : "I would note that Wuhan has China's only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world's most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus."
Feb. 3: WIV researchers report in the journal Nature that the novel coronavirus spreading around the world was a bat-derived coronavirus. The report said SARS-CoV-2 is 96.2 percent identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus named RaTG13.
Feb. 9: In response to criticism from China's ambassador that Cotton's remarks are "absolutely crazy," the senator tweets : "Here's what's not a conspiracy, not a theory: Fact: China lied about virus starting in Wuhan food market. Fact: super-lab is just a few miles from that market. Where did it start? We don't know. But burden of proof is on you & fellow communists. Open up now to competent international scientists."
Feb. 16: Cotton, in response to a Washington Post article critical of him, offers four scenarios on Twitter : "1. Natural (still the most likely, but almost certainly not from the Wuhan food market) 2. Good science, bad safety (e.g., they were researching things like diagnostic testing and vaccines, but an accidental breach occurred). 3. Bad science, bad safety (this is the engineered-bioweapon hypothesis, with an accidental breach). 4. Deliberate release (very unlikely, but shouldn't rule out till the evidence is in). Again, none of these are 'theories' and certainly not 'conspiracy theories.' They are hypotheses that ought to be studied in light of the evidence."
Feb. 19: A statement is published in Lancet by a group of 27 scientists: "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that covid-19 does not have a natural origin," the statement says. Scientists "overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife." The statement was drafted and organized by Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, which funded research at WIV with U.S. government grants. (Three of the signers have since said a laboratory accident is plausible enough to merit consideration.)
Chicago restaurant Steak 48 sparks Twitter backlash on dress code, check minimum
A River North steakhouse has put in place an extremely specific dress code and a high-dollar minimum on patrons' tab, sparking a social media backlash. And industry consultants say the moves could backfire on the establishment.
Steak 48 tells customers on its website they will be required to spend at least $100 per person on food and beverages—not including tax or the 18 percent minimum gratuity added to all checks—"in order to ensure that each guest enjoys the total experience of food, service and atmosphere."
It's unclear exactly when the steakhouse updated its policies, but Twitter and Facebook posts this week responded to the rules.
They said no brokies 😭😭😭😭 #Steak48 no more appetizer dates and step photos pic.twitter.com/yk2Tf64KxH
I know, that's what made me say this. Everything about it was tailored to filter out a certain demographic.
The more accessible something becomes to minorities, particularly black people, the less "luxurious" it's seen as.
Restaurants have undoubtedly struggled during the pandemic. In Chicago, indoor dining is still limited to 75 percent capacity and restaurants have to keep six feet of distance between tables. With limited capacity and months of losses, many establishments are doing what they can to cut costs and watch their margins.
The $100 minimum could be in response to that concern, said Natalie Stanichuk, a partner at Page One Public Relations, whose restaurant clients include establishments in River North and elsewhere in the city. However, it could also turn people away at a time when most restaurants have a lot of revenue to make up.
The dress code only increases the restrictions on who will patronize the restaurant, Stanichuk said, and she would advise clients against it—especially one so specific.
“They want their regulars to come back and they want new people,” she said. “By putting restrictions in place, whether it’s a dress code or a minimum, I think it’s counterproductive.”
No comments:
Post a Comment