CNN Blogs on sex: "Should women be more like men?

Sex: Should women be more like men? – The Chart – CNN.com Blogs

First, a disclaimer: I have always found "Sex and the City" – both the novel and the TV show – to be vapid, idiotic, unrealistic fluff that is insulting to women. Now on to a response to the question posed in the article.

Now, not all men are assholes and whores. Neither are women. So why women fixate on the less flattering qualities of men to emulate in their quest for balanced gender roles is baffling. I tend to think it's because they're not really searching for equality; rather, they're seeking to rebel from the more sensationally prominent of their existing gender role constraints.

Men are not respected by women when they are players/whores. Why would women think they'd command respect as sluts who objectify themselves, valuing their bodies as nothing more than currency in the same way some men do? Is it an "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality?

Then there are the biological variables as described in the article, and of course the fact that "Sex and the City," the TV show, was helmed and directed by men.
That said, the themes and scenarios and characters in the show did spur greater awareness and serious discourse alongside all the vapid frivolity.

People in general need to stop trying to be like someone else and start being like themselves. We can admire qualities in others, and decide to adopt and shape it as our own, but to attempt taking identities wholesale requires a level of misdirected insecurity and regard for the superficial over the nuances of human and individual identity.

Public Produce Markets as an Economic Catalyst and Job Generator?

The Project for Public Spaces published an article this month calling for a national study on the economic impact of public markets, with one of the goals being to find out just how many jobs are and might be created by the development and presence of a public market in a community. This would be a valuable reference for both market advocates and political types with job-creation on their minds to have.

Personally, I have always loved the cry of vendors hawking their wares. It varies by location and in intensity and pitch, but inevitably exudes such a natural, yet practiced and practical, enthusiasm.

History also supports my romanticized vision, having shown that markets have been gathering places throughout the world for people of all walks of life. It has only been in industrialized, technology-centered societies that the natural appeal and applicability of public markets waned (or was suppressed). Now, in an era where jobs are scarce, trendy trappings are more a luxury than a given, and "fresh" + "sustainable" + "community" is to food as "vintage" is to clothes, it makes sense that public markets are making a comeback.

My personal bias aside, such a study would certainly provide welcome data about the economic potential of public markets in communities of varying sizes, from an urban metropolis to a small town. Our nation is in need of any project that has economic viability, on top of the social and environmental benefits offered – perhaps a study on social potential should be called for? – so this type of collaboration would be ideal.

Some of the other topics and goals of the study are as follows:

• The number of jobs created by a public market - directly and indirectly. These could include farmers, seasonal farm workers, market stall employees, market managers, and even seed salespeople.

• The economic impact on the businesses around the market.

• The economic benefit of participation in a public market for the farmer/producer’s business, including an understanding of their cost of production and the cost of their market operation.

• The economic impact on the participating farmers’ rural communities.

• What else needs be evaluated? And how can this study take shape?

Browse the PPS's article for more about the background of public markets and the logistics and collaboration that such an impact study would entail. The nonprofit is also soliciting reader feedback and ideas on their "Markets Economic Impact Study" at info@pps.org.

Revenge: Child Health Group Evicted By Harvard After Alleged Disney Interference

VS.


After successfully publicizing the dangers and lack of educational benefits to babies from Disney's Baby Einstein brand of TV videos, the nonprofit Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has been evicted from its offices in the Harvard-affiliated Judge Baker Children's Health Center. This, after Disney representatives repeatedly called health center officials and allegedly threatened to sue unless the Campaign ended all communications with the press and advocacy work against Disney products.

Conflict of interest should apply.

That Judge Baker and Harvard even thought that this would be acceptable is surprising, but also not so, since as the NY Times article notes, Baker is run with a corporate board of directors, not a community one. So it is subject to a more corporate management than many in the public might expect.

But in the end, I still say this:
Shame on Disney. Shame on Harvard. And shame on us, the American people, for allowing ourselves to create and nurture and continue to stand by and nurture corporations and their ruthless, immoral, careless, evil mindset - which has permeated our own - that operate outside ethics and the law.