Distributism

From Wikipedia:

According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton's statement: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists."

Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property (not to be confused with redistribution of wealth). While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control, with exceptions such as mutualism), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production."  This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.

Distributism has often been described as a "third way", in opposition to both socialism and capitalism. Thomas Storck argues that "both socialism and capitalism are products of the European Enlightenment and are thus modernizing and anti-traditional forces. In contrast, distributism seeks to subordinate economic activity to human life as a whole, to our spiritual life, our intellectual life, our family life".

Discuss.

Video of the Day - the best video ever

These people inspire me. Perhaps I shall put a megaphone on my grocery list.

Arguing with capitalists

(via.)

Is it just me, or do libertarians, capitalists and capitalism sympathizers generally fail miserably at responding to critiques of their preferred economic system with any compelling evidence to the contrary?  Take, for example, Lee Doren.  Doren's preferred method of arguing against people like Annie Leonard (creator of The Story of Stuff), is to simply impatiently explain that the thing with which Annie has a problem is simply the way it works.  His answers are repeatedly some variation of "that's just the way things are."  His YouTube channel is actually called "How The World Works."  Apparently he is entirely unaware that no one is trying to say that this is not the way things work; we are arguing that we don't like it.

Milton Friedman appears to have the same problem-- at least, so far, 50-some pages into Free to Choose.  It's the first I've read of Friedman, and it's about what I expected, after arguments with some of my free-market loving friends throughout the years.  For example, in Chapter 2, The Tyranny of Controls:

It is simply not true that high-wage American workers are, as a group, threatened by "unfair" competition from low-wage foreign workers.  Of course, particular workers may be harmed if a new or improved product is developed abroad, or if foreign producers become able to produce such products more cheaply.  But that is no different from the effect on a particular group of workers of other American firms' developing new or improved products or discovering how to produce lower costs.  That is simply market competition in practice, the major source of the high standard of life of the American worker.  If we want to benefit from a vital, dynamic, innovative economic system, we must accept the need for mobility and adjustment.

It's constant.  Their arguments generally boil down to, "look, everything you're saying you hate about capitalism-- the greed, the pollution, the job loss, the commodification of humans, exploitation of labor, and so on and so forth-- are all valid; the thing is, we just don't want to change anything, because we benefit so much from this.  And you could too, if you were as white as me, as wealthy as me, and as willing as I am to actively and deliberately benefit from the exploitation of anything that gets in my way.  ...You lazy bum."

Going back to Lee Doren, he also loves to respond to opposing arguments with useless facts about how bad things used to be.  Like how although BFRs are neurotoxins  (approx. 2:40), and we put them in pillows and other things we want to be flame-retardant, we've potentially saved 40,000 lives as a result of this toxicity, so please be quiet about negative side effects.  As if that negates the neurotoxicity of BMRs.  And that's the real problem with these folks.  They don't address a single critique of their theories and practices, because they refuse to acknowledge things that are happening right in front of their faces:

Remember Earth Hour, where we were all supposed to shut off our lights for an hour to show our commitment to sustainable energy?  Lee Doren doesn't like the idea because, due to human achievement, we're able to have lights and electricity, so therefore, there's no problem:

Stay tuned for: The Many Reasons to Hate Andrew Breitbart.

It's parents' fault that marketers exploit children

At least, that's what reporter Rayne Millaray seems to think.

Liz Szabo complains in USA Today that marketers are preying on children, and especially little girls, when they push sexuality on 8-year-olds.  Millaray, on the other hand, thinks the parents of these children aren't "doing their  jobs," because they bought their 8-year-old the cell phone that showed them the controversial ads, and that said parents are, in fact, interfering with marketers' ability to do their jobs:

Parents! You're right. The marketing industry doesn't have your childrens' best interests at heart. They are more worried about money than your kids' mental and physical safety. Their job is to bring in money, not parent your kids. So why not let them do their job, while you continue to do yours?

What's alarming is the utter lack of analysis over the admitted fact that marketers are more concerned with profit than with being responsible and ethical members of our society.  They are the problem, laws regarding marketing and advertising to children are the problem, the allowance of Big Business to pursue profit over all else is the problem; the problem is not a parent who buys their kid a fricken cell phone, unnecessary as one may be for any given preteen.

File under: blaming the individual for systemic issues, "that's just the way it is."

Misdirecting blame

Chelsea Fagan, a regular Thought Cloud blogger, made the whole internet mad yesterday with her disgusting post about how women need to take at least some responsibility for being raped, harassed, or sexually assaulted if they're dressed in a "slutty" way.  Following the shitstorm of justifiably furious comments, an apology from  Thought Cloud editor Ryan O'Connell, and even a response on Feministing, Fagan haughtily and smugly responded on her Tumblr, making sure to reiterate how "not upset" she is by it all, and an explanation about how she didn't actually say anything she actually said (you over-sensitive idiots).

I hope I don't need to go into why blaming rape victims for their rapes is bad, but I will say this: the second you start disparagingly discussing the clothing choices of rape, assault, or harassment victims, you're blaming the victim.  For what other reason is such a discussion necessary in such a context?  A person who commits a crime against another person is the only person at fault for committing said crime.  It is not the victim's fault that they were victimized.  A rapist makes the decision to rape another person.  Clothing does not cause rape.  RAPISTS CAUSE RAPE.

Moving on.

While victim-blaming tends to most frequently rear its ugly head in situations involving rape and sexual assault, it's also deeply permeated in the rest of our culture.  Also infuriating are many other insidious victim-blaming sentiments I hear expressed more and more frequently as of late, especially on Facebook, where I am "friends" with a few really upset white men who insist that capitalism works for everyone, and poor people are poor because they're lazy.  A summary of their views: People are ultimately responsible for every single decision they make regardless of circumstance, but powerful figures and organizations who influence those decisions are not ever responsible, under any circumstance.

It seems that, quite often, when confronted with any situation of injustice on behalf of another person with whom one does not share economic, racial, religious, sexual, or gender identities or experiences, people want to find any reason to apologize for the alleged perpetrator... probably because they don't want to be seen as somehow complicit in the unjust act, especially if they share certain traits with the perpetrator, like gender, or race.  And it happens across the board with common arguments and behaviors:

Fat-shaming.  Particularly when this is directed at poor people, or poor people with fat children.  Parents (usually of the single-mother variety) are routinely criticized* for not feeding their children fresh fruits and vegetables, even though it's been proven time and again that, due to corporate-interest lobbyists and their bought-and-paid-for legislators and regulators, junk food and processed garbage are more economical for a poor person than actual nutrient-rich foods.  Furthermore, such poor-quality (but profitable!) foods cause all kinds of other chronic illnesses, of which weight gain is a common side-effect, and you cannot definitively know by looking at a person what the status of their health is.

Poor-blaming.  Making arguments against terminated minimum-wage employees that pretend the workers themselves actually invited their own firing by suggesting that "[n]ow those 6 former workers can start their own sandwich franchise and set employee policies as they please. Of course they'd have to put their own money on the line." (this is a Facebook comment I received in response to the linked article by one of the aforementioned friends.)  That response entirely misses the point of unions in the first place, and lacks any actual critical analysis of the situation.  How do you expect a person who was fired from their minimum-wage food service job to have the necessary capital, resources, education, and ability to just go ahead and open up their own franchise?  And what is this "their own money" thing?  What money?  Let me tell you, if I already had the money required to open my own Jimmy John's franchise, I am incredibly unlikely to opt instead to be a minimum-wage sandwich maker there without the reasonable expectation that I can stay home when I have a communicable illness.  To assume that all 6 of these employees were making exactly that unlikely decision would be deliberately obfuscating.  The entire basis of this argument is flawed.  

I've also seen similar arguments directed at people (like me) who "willingly" work for corporations with whom they disagree politically.  They say things like "there is a willful hypocrisy in condemning a corporation and still taking money from them. I don't know about you, but that sounds unethical to me.  It's an honest question that needs answering. If people were maybe more ethical in their own judgments, then maybe big companies that you criticize wouldn't be in business because people would no longer frequent them or they wouldn't have competent employees working to promote their services anymore. For me the final buck stops with the citizen and their own choices, blaming big business for me is a tactic to deflect the attention from people and the decisions people make."  

This person, whose quote I pulled from a friend's Facebook page, chose to completely disregard the fact that in a job market like ours, where completely ethical and progressive employers are not widespread, and an economic system which prioritizes profit over fair wages, the vast majority of people will work for corporations because it's all they can do.  I can hardly get behind the idea that I am actually guilty or hypocritical in taking a job with TCF Bank, when TCF Bank was the first and only company to call me back and offer me a livable wage when I needed a job in that income range.  The argument that I was acting hypocritically and unethically is absurd.  The blame is blatantly and inappropriately placed on the nearly powerless individual for not appropriately standing up to Big Business, while absolving said Big Business of any and all blame for their destructive policies that all but force people like me into bullshit jobs with corporations whose ethics and politics directly oppose our best interests.

It's constant, this passivity that comes from these people in regards to the horrific actions of Big Business, in conjunction with their vitriolic rants against the stupidity and unethicality of powerless individual citizens.  As if the business has more of a right to pursue their destructive agenda than the individual has to be protected from being a victim of that same destruction.

That's just how it works.  This argument is typically made by people who are also sick of the way things work in the world, but have been brainwashed to believe that there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it because the system under which we operate is simply the best system, innumerable flaws be uncritically damned.  This argument is made when people such as myself complain about sexism, when people complain about discrimination based on race or sexual orientation, or when someone doesn't like a policy put forth by the corporation they work for.  

The various types of "that's just how it works" statements are also fallacious when you consider to what they are typically responding.  In my experience, I get the most of these comments in response to my own arguments against the way things currently work.  When someone says "we need to change the way things work," a sensible rebuttal is not "that's just the way things work."  A reasonable rebuttal would include reasons why "the way things work" are better than the proposed alternative.  See also: everything that comes out of Lee Doren's smug little mouth.

And finally,

These things take time.  This is usually said by someone who has not had to experience the incessant effects of inequality firsthand, relative to the person to whom they are addressing this statement.  Like, for example, a very nice, egalitarian-minded white male entrepreneur that I know who doesn't piss me off nearly as much as the other people mentioned, but who lacks some much needed perspective on the issue of ongoing fights for equality, who said exactly this to me in a Facebook message the other day.  It's just, well, insensitive, at best, to tell a woman, a gay person, a person of color, or any other marginalized individual that they shouldn't expect too much too soon, when your relative privilege is incredibly obvious to everyone but yourself.  In saying "these things take time" to this person, you're communicating, in a very patronizing manner, no less, that they're being unreasonable in their desire and demand for equal rights.  While it may seem to make sense to offer such a simple clarification of apparent reality to someone with whom you may sympathize ideologically, it only comes across as a clueless attempt at patronizing someone that you think "just doesn't get it."  And frequently, these deceptively harmless remarks turn into tone-policing and other accusations that the marginalized person is digging their own hole and somehow responsible for their continued oppression.  And as if arguing one's point in a way that makes the recipient uncomfortable is a fine reason to abandon any support for the original cause.  This belief relies on the easily-accepted notion that the system under which we live is already fair and just, and that a simple loophole -- a poorly-stated argument or emotional tone, for example -- is just grounds for the marginalized person to remain marginalized.

In blaming the individual for systemic issues over which they have little to no control, all of these practices and arguments inevitably lead to a failure to appropriately hold accountable the person or entity responsible for the injustice, which only delays correcting the original problem.  Of course, to let individuals off the hook for their choices would be foolish.  But the line shouldn't be so hard to see between victim-blaming and holding individuals responsible for their actions.  It's as simple as considering how the power is dispersed in any given situation.

What is wrong with the world, in a few short Facebook paragraphs

I went on a 4am rant on Facebook last night, which resulted in the following:

It's infuriating that big business is able to get away with manipulating the public in the name of free market capitalism, while behaving in a manner so directly opposed to free market capitalism's main tenant: competition. See: the logging industry's success in criminalizing marijuana because they know hemp is threatening to their profits, and the constant push for more oil-based products.

Deception in the name of profit is disgusting and is directly opposed to democracy, choice, and everything that everyone who wants to be loyal to the Unites States basic philosophy of free will, freedom, and equality continues to champion.

It is inherently immoral to use profit, propaganda, and widespread manipulation as a way to maintain the flow of pieces of green paper to one's bank account.

Also noting the fact that it's easy to see how other, non-economic-based inequalities are maintained under this pretend, yet highly-populaized, version of free-market economics. Women and ethnic minorites continue to be systemicallly oppressed as a direct result of the accepted belief that exploitation is a natural byproduct of innovation, and because the US has a history of making systemic oppression profitable (see: slavery, Jim Crow laws, & gender-based expectations & stereotypes), large entites continue to find ways to convince vulnerable people that maintaining that status quo is beneficial-- usually by exploiting said populations' community-based religious beliefs, when in fact those religious beliefs, & the claim that any politician or pundit shares them, is completely irrelevant to any practical issue that affects every single average American.

Again, it comes down to manipulation via rhetoric, deception, & propaganda. Undemocratic, plutocratic, xenophobic, misogynist, racist bullshit. Everything we pretend to be against that we actively support via engaging in the very lifestyle that perpetuates it.

It's not that I believe that capitalism is inherently evil. It's that allowing the pursuit of profit to dictate society is inherently flawed. Capitalism can produce amazing innovation, but the unregulated freedom to prioritize profit breedscorruption & deception, which is naturally in opposition to HUMANS having free will and choice to democratically reward & punish good and bad behavior. Adam Smith himself noted the inherent flaws in this system & championed regulation & check & balances, which is what the so-called free-market capitalists are currently fighting so vehemently against. & it's transparently all about greed, not actual economic stability, which is what's causing the labor resurgence & the so-called "class wars."

And: sustainability is key for long-term profitability, if you're concerned with such things as "profit." Not logging, not petroleum, not other unsustainable and un-renewable resources. DUH. The fact that those in power are so concerned with unsustainable EVERYTHING makes their intentions completely transparent. Anyone ACTUALLY interested and concerned with long-term success will abandon petroleum-based products and other un-renewable interests with those that will be sustained over the long terms, like wind and solar power, or hemp over wood-based production for paper-based products and clothing. IT'S OBVIOUS, and infuriating that it's apparently so easy to ignore reality or accept propaganda and bullshit rhetoric claiming exactly the opposite of reality. WAKE THE FUCK UP.

And while I appreciate organizations like NOW, the ACLU, and others, they're merely a Band-Aid on the huge, chronic problem that continues to plague our country. They're a response to the problem, but they're not the solution. They valiantly and respectably do what they can to help those negatively affected by the system, WITHIN the system, but they don't solve the underlying problem, which is unregulated greed and profit-chasing. And it's not their fault. They are staffed by committed activists and people passionate about this exact kind of change and progress; they do exactly what they can.

This is what is fucked up about our system, that makes us actually nearly powerless and fucked as a society. We like to think that, as Americans, we are freer and better in most all ways than everyone else on this little planet in the vast universe that we reside in, but really, we're not only not better than many places, we're also far worse. What the fuck is "life," anyway? The pursuit of profit? The thrill of the fight between you and giant, profit-earning entities? How is that helpful to you? Do you LIKE the idea that humans are supposedly naturally inclined to kill each other over some berries? Don't you think that, regardless of your philosophical or religious beliefs, that humans might be capable of MORE than that? We've been granted (or evolved into) the ability to reason and contemplate morality; shouldn't this mean that we have a responsibility to see it all the way through, then? If we can, then we MUST, if you ask me.

Conservative ideology fights for the continued support of stagnancy. Stagnancy ONLY causes a halt in our human evolution, progress, and responsibility-- personally and communally. Progress, in ALL FORMS, is THE ONLY way to ensure human survival, prosperity, and freedom. Conservatism IN ALL FORMS, PERIOD, is ALWAYS a stumbling block to true humanity, because it promotes stagnancy. Stagnancy IS ALWAYS bad. ALWAYS. GROWTH is the only goal worth pursuing. 

Stagnancy, coincidentally, is championed in evangelical Christian circles, as a natural byproduct of remembering that, someday, apparently Jesus will float down to Earth and declare that some people get to live in the clouds and others get to literally burn in actual fire "below" the Earth. Interesting how these same propagandists are some of the biggest supporters of right-wing politics and continue to have so much political influence. HILAR, RIGHT?!! LOL!!

(Despite my ranting getting progressively drunker over the evening, the responses I got were surprisingly not hostile, with lots of "read Marx!" recommendations.  And hey, no one called me a troop-hating anti-American this time!)

Nothing is free in this market.

by Chris

The term “free-market economy” is a misnomer. The name is intended to refer to the fact that if someone wishes to do something to make money, that they have the freedom to pursue that opportunity without impediments. However, what is ignored is the fact that there are inherent costs in everything as well as restrictions put in place for the well being of society. There are reasons that paint is no longer sold with lead, companies are no longer able to dump whatever leftover toxic materials from production into the water supply and why cars are required to meet safety guidelines. This term is bandied about way too often by Republicans and Libertarians when describing their ideal economy without understanding the basics ideas behind the theory. And yes it is a theory because it's virtually impossible to prove a macroeconomic concept.

I think these are two biggest and most annoying misconceptions about a free-market economy.

First, if Republicans wanted to express their ideology more correctly, they would say “a freer market economy.” The alteration of the one word makes a huge difference. Understanding that we live in a market economy means accepting that restrictions and regulations on business will need to be put in place. There is nothing wrong with wanting less restrictions when they make sense, but reacting as if America would be put on the path to Socialism (read: Communism) each time any sort of new regulation suggested shows true ignorance. It is the prices of goods and services which are determined by the basics of supply and demand. If more people want something of limited supply, they will invariably pay more to get that something. Conversely if there is too much of something, people will be able to look to many places and bargain one seller against another to get the best price. That is the basis of a market economy. It all sounds so simple, and on the person-to-person level it really is, but in a true macroeconomic sense, it really isn't.

Second, it is often made to sound as if one is against a free-market economy, then you are against freedom, and therefore must hate America. I wish that was an exaggeration, but to cite Dennis Prager:

“The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world's left, loathes that America.”

It is a nice little trick Prager pulls to create two different America's, all while stating that one America is better than the other. Sure, that is one voice, but one that has a syndicated radio program. He also had an issue with Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison about using a Koran during his swearing in ceremony. The irony of course is in the US Constitution there no stated religious text that is required to be used when swearing in a representative of the government. The lesson here is: Freedom in the economy? Great. Freedom of religion? Not so much. Also, only the second choice is actually guaranteed by the US Constitution.

There are many, many, many more points that could be made about the fallacy of a “free-market economy,” but recently a situation arose that is relatable. Congress was nearing the end of it's session and Republicans were threatening to stall every other bill until the “Bush” tax cuts, which were scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, were extended. Democrats were pushing to let only the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, while the rest were extended. Cries from the right erupted that doing so was an affront to the free market, which again doesn't actually exist, and that it was class warfare against those who worked hard to earn those large incomes. These same people ignored the fact there is decrease in the inheritance tax, which is really only applicable to those with a large amount of wealth to pass on to their heirs who did nothing to earn that wealth except be born into the right family. You would also hear people say that if these tax cuts were allowed to expire, that capital that would be used to create jobs would disappear and cause the unemployment rate to go higher. There are so many things wrong with that statement, it will need to be left for another day to fully examine.

Wondering about my opinion? I think that the congress was right to extend all of the tax cuts temporarily. So, even though I would consider myself a liberal, I am in favor of something that Republicans were willing to essentially shut down congress unless it was passed? Yes. Even though I absolutely believe that tax rates are too low, especially for the highest income brackets and that any sort of trickle-down economic theory is a complete joke, there is something to be said about not reducing the amount of money in all of the people's pockets, and how much they were expecting to be putting in their pockets when it is unknown if the global economy is actually recovering.

There was also a key word in that previous statement. Temporarily. There were Republicans who wished to make these tax cuts permanent, but when they knew they didn't have the votes, they didn't put up much of a fight. That, in itself shows that for many this is mainly a political trumpet to toot and be heard. So, this issue will be revisited in two years. We know what the make-up of this next congress will be, but we don't yet know how it will behave in two years. We don't know how much power, if any, President Obama will be able to exert during an election year, or even if he will still be president the following year, in 2013. If the economy begins to show real progress and unemployment drops, I think a more reasonable debate will be able to be conducted.

Republicans threatened and some might say that Democrats folded, but there are couple of points with which I would like to conclude. After this bill passed, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed, the nuclear treaty with Russia was approved, and the bill for 9/11 responders were approved as well. Would these have happened without this compromise? Also, by demanding that the tax cuts for the richest Americans continue, Republicans have ignored all of their rhetoric that was spewed about the national debt and fiscal responsibility and that it needed to be addressed immediately, for the sake of the children. This bill will increase the debt by almost a trillion dollars, and apparently those on the right were A-OK with that. They pleased their constituents (read: large campaign contributors), but many will now have to hope that their vote isn't mentioned the next time they criticize a spending bill only because it is not fully paid for by cutting spending on something else. Republicans will also have to admit to themselves that they helped President Obama end the year with three large political victories.

What I'm reading

A very engaging and unexpectedly touching account of Aurora Levins Morales' experience "coming back to capitalism" as she enters the US after being in Cuba.

One of those book reviews that makes you feel like you actually read the book, at least a little bit, because of the excellent analysis.

The only way to shift the political culture is to start a national conversation about gender pressures on men, she said. Until we do that, we won’t see much progress for women.

Devra Renner and Aviva Pflock, authors of Mommy Guilt, will understand this book. Even though their book is about mothers, most of the work they do is about parenting. They spend a lot of time reminding others that parenting is something both mothers and fathers do.

A discussion on sex work, stripping in particular, and the difference in society's perception and treatment of men and women in the industry.

Gender Across Borders is looking for article submissions "that explore the relationship between gender roles in the workplace and at home." Both women and men are encouraged to submit. From the request:

The topic of this series is intentionally broad to capture the diverse experiences of women and men in the workplace and at home.

A broad range of materials in welcome, from personal narratives to academic essays to profiles that focus on particular people or events. Articles from around the world are strongly desired.

Some questions to consider:

-How does culture shape gender roles in the workplace and at home?
-How have gender roles changed over time because of feminist and other influences?
-How do class, race and sexuality influence gender roles in the workplace and at home?
-What does the future hold for women and men in the workplace – and at home?

Innocent Smith, in a fantastic analysis of capitalism and traditional values:

Ultimately, what capitalism has produced is two Americas: a Blue America whose prosperity depends upon the values it professes to have outgrown, and a Red America that preaches traditional values but wholeheartedly embraces the economic Darwinism that preys upon them.

A touching account (pun not intended) of a memory of the Radical Housewife's mother's touch.

Imnotme has revamped his blog, and the content is now primarily fiction work, including While Great We Are. An excerpt from the short story:

The fire was nearly half burned down and the library had taken on a somberness. The conversations had turned from philosophy to mortality. James, who had stopped challenging the other two to nine-ball championships, given his losing streak, was now sitting in the mammoth chair nearest the bar, a half empty bottle of brandy sat hesitantly on the edge of the bar above his right arm; the fire on his left cast a devilish shadow across his brooding face. His black snout glimmered.

And, last but not least, a friendly message to the Christians who, without fail, claim every year that there's a "war on Christmas," or that "Christians are oppressed in this country." Even though I'm referring to the US and this clip is referring to Great Britain, it still applies across the board:



Leave links to interesting things you've read, or written, in the comments!

How to make your relationship better: pretend you live in the 1950's!

As women have begun to be more present in high-earning careers such as business and law, among others, more and more articles are published about how (heterosexual) women can't find men to form relationships with who aren't intimidated, or made to feel inadequate by, the woman's financial success compared to their own. In one such article, Katrin Bennhold of the New York Times wonders, "is female empowerment killing romance?"

Sexual attraction in the 21st century, it seems, still feeds on 20th-century stereotypes. Now, as more women match or overtake men in education and the labor market, they are also turning traditional gender roles on their head, with some profound consequences for relationship dynamics.

There is a growing army of successful women in their 30s who have trouble finding a mate and have been immortalized in S.A.T.C. and the Bridget Jones novels. There are the alpha-women who end up with alpha-men but then decide to put career second when the babies come. But there is also a third group: a small but growing number of women who out-earn their partners, giving rise to an assortment of behavioral contortions aimed at keeping the appearance of traditional gender roles intact.

So, does female empowerment kill romance? Sure, so long as we define "romance" as men financially supporting women. Which most of us don't, and all of us shouldn't.

Let's explore the reasons why there might be a problem. The women cited in the article are making more money than their male partners, and those men feel insecure and inadequate as a result, because they're used to high salaries being the marker of what a good human is, an honor that was once, not too long ago, bestowed primarily upon men. Now the possibility that a woman -- a person who was once relegated to the home, subsisting on whatever money her husband was willing or able to provide to the family -- may now overtake him in terms of her wages or salary. How do they remedy the situation? Well, they could, together, understand that the feelings of inadequacy are irrational, and that they need to be worked through and eventually eliminated, because women having access to the same means of earning a lot of money is a good thing, and not worthy of feelings of inadequacy and inferiority. They could also take a broader look at their relationship to see what they really want from it, and what they value and contribute. Earning money isn't the only way that a person contributes to a relationship, be it a casual dating relationship, or a long-term marriage or partnership.

But no,

Ms. Domscheit-Berg, who is also active in the European Women’s Management Development International Network, has three bits of advice for well-paid women: Leave the snazzy company car at home on the first date; find your life partner in your 20s, rather than your 30s, before you’ve become too successful. And go after men who draw their confidence from sources other than money, like academics and artists.

“The more different their activity from your own, the better,” said Ms. Domscheit-Berg, “because that makes an immediate comparison harder.”

Instead, women should hide their financial success from men in order to trick them into a relationship -- or get them into a relationship before letting on an intent to be financially successful -- or they should hide their financial success in public in order to maintain the perception of sexist traditions whose slow elimination have made it possible for women to gain access to the financial success in the first place.

Couples can, will, and do compromise on a number of issues in order to maintain a harmonious relationship. For example,

Anne-Laure Kiechel is an investment banker in Paris who makes more than five times more than her boyfriend, a communications consultant. She keeps watch on their finances and pays for all big invisible expenses, like vacations.

But in public, it is he who insists on pulling out his credit card to avoid, he said, looking like a “gigolo.”

“It makes me laugh,” Ms. Kiechel said. “But if it pleases him, that’s fine.” (Not long ago, he asked her to book hotels in his name because he doesn’t like being referred to as “Mr. Kiechel” upon arrival; future bookings would be made in both names, she said.)

Timothy Eustis, once a teacher in New York City, is a proud stay-at-home dad and occasional wine consultant, who moved to France with his wife, Sarah, when she was offered a senior management post at the French lingerie brand Etam. Neither has a problem that she is the breadwinner and her salary aliments the joint account. But both cherish what he calls “those little traditions” to keep the romantic spark alive.

“I make an effort to hold the door, I almost always drive the car, and when it’s time to pay the bill, I pay the bill,” he said. “Sarah probably intentionally lets me do these things because she thinks it benefits the relationship.”

Working out arrangements where the man is the one to hand the debit or credit card from the the joint account that the woman largely finances to the server at a nice restaurant seems a small and harmless concession for many people. The larger issue, of course, fails to be addressed.

What also remains unaddressed is the implication that these small moves toward equality between women and men are largely women's responsibility. We've "won" access to high-paying careers (leaving aside the misogyny still rampant in many high-paying fields, making climbing any kind of career ladder more difficult for women than it is for men), but we have to be the ones to make sure that our male partners are comfortable with this change?

I'm sympathetic to the men in these stories. I'm sure that such a change from cultural norms that have been instilled in us from birth is difficult, and the societal reactions to a woman being the sole earner, or the half of the couple who earns the most, can be brutal to men. Wanting to avoid the potential social punishment for not having enough money to financially support your wife or girlfriend is understandable. It's not helpful, though, to instruct women to maintain the facade of an outdated, sexist tradition-- especially when she is expected to do so by publicly denying a part of her identity. Where are the articles instructing men on how to feel less intimidated, how to accept that moves toward equality are good things, how they might go about making themselves feel more comfortable with their wives' financial success? Why is the responsibility on women to do it for them? What is the man's responsibility here? As of now, it doesn't appear that he has any, unless remembering to act macho in the face of public scrutiny is one of them.

What also remains unaddressed is the continued acceptance that money is the only way of measuring "success." This leaves out entire segments of people who contribute a great deal to society, like artists, musicians, teachers, local law enforcement, and scores of other people in low-paid, but eternally necessary, fields.

Now, I'm writing about this without having ever really been affected by the issue, myself. I've never placed any importance on money when it comes to relationships. This could be due to my own interests and extra-curricular activities of choice not requiring a lot of money, or my (usually) inexpensive taste. It could also be due to my amusing history of finding boyfriends at workplaces, where I can expect that me and my mate are probably making the same amount of money. Essentially, the only requirement I've ever really made in terms of partners and income is that I don't have to be responsible for any of their financial obligations. I don't want to be in a position where I'm paying someone's rent or their car payment, or buying them groceries. I just require that my partner be self-sufficient, and how that self-sufficiency happens is largely irrelevant, as long as nothing that I consider immoral or unethical is happening. And if I want to do something fun that costs money, I'm always happy to foot the bill. It's the other person's obligations that I don't want. Not too much to ask for.

Interestingly, I, too, would feel uncomfortable with a partner making a significantly higher amount of money than me. The reason, I've gathered, is due to the fear that the man in question would think that I was only interested in the relationship with him because of his income. Don't get me wrong; if my husband's music career were to take off, or if he were to become a high-paid college professor or author, I'd be more than happy with the increase in income. He would remember, though, that I didn't seek out a relationship with him when he had that money; we started dating seriously when he was a couch-surfing, unemployed student, which was much more endearing than anything. The fear that he thinks I'm only in it for the money wouldn't exist.

I'd like to see fewer articles telling women how to make their insecure male partners feel better, and more about how men can fix their problem with this increasing equality themselves, or how couples can work together to both be more comfortable with changing relationship dynamics.

Also check out Jill's take on this article over at Feministe.

The problem with makeup

Since my last day at my soul-sucking job two weeks ago at the morally bankrupt financial institution where I was employed for three years, I have yet to put on any makeup. I've written about the topic before, and gone into great detail about the more malicious and/or deceptive practices of marketers for cosmetic companies and why they piss me off, but I'd like to approach the topic from a slightly different angle this time around.

A blogger by the name of Rachel Rabbit White started what ended up being a pretty far-reaching movement called No Make-Up Week this past September. I thought about going along with it, but ended up forgetting or realizing I'd put on mascara or something and figured I'd sit it out, but it's a great idea, nonetheless. As Rachel says,

The philosophy is this. Make-up is great. It is a powerful tool, a way to express yourself, your mood and interior life. But, when you can’t go without something, it loses it’s spark.

A study online claims that 8 out of 10 women prefer their female colleagues to wear makeup and the same number of women said they would rather employ a woman who wore makeup than one who didn’t. Because of these expectations, I think it’s hard for any woman to have a good relationship to make-up.

Makeup and other cosmetics are great, fun ways to be creative with one's appearance. My problems with makeup are easily summed up in two ways:

1. Makeup is not marketed as a fun way to be creative with one's appearance; it's marketed as a necessity to cover, hide, or otherwise correct a woman's appearance. Implicit in this marketing is the assumption that there is always something wrong with the way that women look. This is perpetuated by douchey magazines like Cosmo and even teen rags like YM and others who give incessant "tips" about how to apply makeup to "problem areas" and from which cosmetic company to purchase them.

2. Makeup is only marketed to women. If makeup is to be used to cover "problem areas" or improve the appearance of the person wearing it, one would assume that men would also want these products, too, no? Apparently not; men are apparently believed to either have perfect appearances, or they're not expected to look attractive at all times. Either way you look at it, the assumptions are sexist in nature, and contribute not only to misogyny, but also to deliberately manipulative marketing schemes that are deceptive to the targeted audience and irresponsible to the environment and their customers' health.

Eliminating my use of makeup isn't a huge change for me, really; the only thing I need to eliminate from my daily makeup routine is mascara. Mascara is hard for me, though, because I feel like I look like a completely different person without it on. With foundation cream, undereye concealer, etc., I feel like the way I actually look isn't changed too drastically, but mascara lengthens and darkens eyelashes, which makes my eyes look like a different shape. Without mascara on, I feel like my eyes disappear into my face.

But see, not only is the idea that mascara changes the shape of my eyes probably not even true, but that is an insecurity that makeup causes. I didn't feel like I needed mascara until after I got into the habit of putting on mascara and other cosmetics every day, and as a result, wasn't used to the way my own face looked without it on. I also foolishly never washed it off until morning, just before I reapplied it, giving me even less time to see my actual face.

I don't think make-up needs to be a contentious issue, or something that a woman has to swear off in order to be a "good feminist." I'd like to see make-up sold as a creative tool, and marketed to both women and men. Unfortunately, exploiting women's socialized fear of being physically imperfect sells more products, and nothing short of a complete overhaul is likely to change this behavior.

With swearing off makeup, at least temporarily, I hope to be able to recognize my face again and not feel like it needs to be altered, which will allow me to see makeup exactly the way I want to, as an occasional way to be creative with my appearance.

Bank suing the Fed over 'Durbin amendment' to financial reform act

People following the banking industry's shenanigans may be familiar with the so-called Durbin amendment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The amendment targets the interchange fees that merchants pay to their banks for their customers' Visa card use.  In short, merchants have been saying for some time now that the fees are prohibitively high, and banks are saying that the fees are simply the cost of doing business.

Well, the amendment was passed with the rest of the Act, and not without fervent attempts (of questionable legality) to stop it on the parts of many banks; notably, Minnesota-based TCF Bank:

Like many banks that issue debit or credit cards, TCF is quite worried that Congress will slash fee income from cards. TCF has asked customers to write Congress to oppose such legislation. And [CEO Bill] Cooper says about 120,000 customers have responded. 

The bank has also asked employees for support. At one point, an e-mail went out to TCF executives asking them to keep track of which employees wrote Congress. That could have gotten the bank in legal trouble, and the request was withdrawn within a few hours.

Cooper said it wasn't his idea. 

"Somebody may have done that," Cooper said. "If that did happen, I don't know about it. And I can assure you that if that happened, it wasn't instructed."

Sure, Bill.  Sure.

Well, now Bill Cooper has decided to take his frustration out on the Fed by way of a lawsuit.

The Wayzata-based regional bank, which collects about $100 million a year from interchange fees, is seeking a court order declaring the Durbin amendment unconstitutional and an injunction barring its enforcement. 

The bank's chairman and chief executive officer, William Cooper, says the law unconstitutionally takes away TCF's property in the form of fees and violates the bank's right to equal protection by favoring smaller banks. 

Unable to sue Congress, Cooper decided instead to sue his own regulator, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and the Fed's board of governors.

You can read the lawsuit here.

If you don't feel like reading all 54 pages, allow me to summarize:

Cooper is extremely angry that this amendment passed because it was pushed through late in the session and wasn't debated.  He's upset that TCF is a relatively small bank compared to the bigger institutions originally targeted.  Mostly, though, he's really upset that he won't be able to get away with charging customers for the use of their debit cards to recoup the loss in revenue:

TCF cannot, in response to the Durbin Amendment, begin charging its customers for debit cards to recoup lost revenues; customers would quickly migrate to the exempt banks, use credit cards (issued by other banks) as debit cards, or return to the more inefficient use of written checks. Nor can TCF drop its debit service--TCF’s customers expect and demand that their checking accounts include this service. TCF is left with no choice but to continue to provide debit cards at no cost to its customers. In that event, TCF’s costs will remain largely unchanged, but TCF will be able to recover only a small portion of those costs.

Since TCF recently had to change their overdraft policies, just like the rest of the banks here in the US, their profits have been cut drastically.  TCF is unique in that more of their profits came from overdraft fees than most other banks, so they're already smarting over that.  In response, TCF is ordering their branch employees to force lie to aggressively promote customers to "opt in" to their overdraft services, which would charge customers $35 per overdrafted transaction.  Keep in mind that TCF, like Wells Fargo and other large national banks, posts their customers' transactions in highest-dollar-amount to lowest-dollar-amount order, potentially causing more overdraft fees than the customer would have received had the bank posted the transactions in chronological order.  Wells Fargo lost a class action lawsuit over this practice recently, and it appears TCF is going to be following suit, as consumers are now suing the bank for the very same reason.

It seems as though TCF is in a bad spot, as revenues from overdraft fees are sharply declining, and profit from gouging merchants for interchange fees are looking to be headed in the same direction.  Cooper's reasoning for the lawsuit, however, doesn't seem to hold water.  Senator Durbin's statement on the amendment:

The Durbin amendment would direct the Fed to issue rules to ensure that debit interchange fees are reasonable and proportional to the processing costs incurred.

Senator Durbin responded to the lawsuit:

"The law in no way addresses the fees TCF, or any other bank, can charge and it does not set interchange rates," Durbin said, adding that the law was a "reaction to the frustrations of millions of merchants and consumers who were getting nickled and dimed by the anticompetitive interchange system set up by big banks and credit card companies -- including TCF."

Cooper insists that, rather than exactly what is written in the law itself, the Durbin amendment unconstitutionally sets the prices that banks like his are allowed to charge merchants who, as he says, are simply trying to rake in more profit for themselves, and will not pass the savings on to customers:

"It is nothing but blatant lobbying by one industry [retailers] to take advantage of the political weakness of another," Cooper said. "Do you think Wal-Mart is going to give this money to charity? Why do you think they spent all this lobbying money to get it done?"

Ultimately, Cooper believes that TCF is too small of a bank to be subject to these new restrictions, and probably just fears that he won't be able to have enough money to donate to Michele Bachmann to do his bidding, and MN Forward, the organization that supports Tom Emmer for Minnesota governor, and is actively hostile toward the LGBT community.  This is unsurprising, as Bill Cooper is the former chair of the Minnesota GOP.

(LOL, he's concerned about lobbying.)

I'm interested to see the results of this lawsuit.

Kissing the Ass of Big Business Doesn't Make You Morally Superior, or Smart

Due in no small part to ethecofem's very own (albeit currently MIA, although I'm working on that) kissiegrrrl, I've been made aware of the fabulous resource that is The Story of Stuff, and their YouTube educational series about what we consume, where it comes from, where it goes, and what it all means in the context of humanity and our continued existence. Another YouTube user, who so arrogantly names himself HowTheWorldWorks, put up a series of critiques of the HowStuffWorks content. Being the lover of critical thinking that I am, and appreciating intelligently-articulated views that may oppose my own, I enthusiastically watched the video in it's entirety, twice. Unfortunately, I learned nothing, other than the ways in which HowTheWorldWorks is just... wrong.




1. Why shouldn't 9-year-olds think that Legos (made from plastic, which is made from oil) are destroying the earth? Legos (which are plastic, and made from oil, an unsustainable natural resource), as well as other unrecycled plastic products, ARE destroying the earth. And where's your citation?

2. It's pretty awesome that microchips are getting smaller and smaller. It's pretty great that we can store more and more information on smaller and smaller devices. This, however, doesn't matter at all, considering the fact that the planet, and the people on it, aren't, you know, microchips.

3. The earth is compacted with tons of resources that we don't know how to use yet? Oh? Sure, this may be very true, and I am willing to believe your statement. But this still doesn't actually matter. Because the earth does not have endless resources. So we can run out of oil, some scientists can figure out how to use other resources to sustain our lifestyles, and then we panic about what will happen when THOSE resources near their end. What happens when we are out of THOSE resources? Or are you just crossing your fingers and hoping we end up like the folks in Firefly, and find a bunch of other "earths" to terraform? Good luck. Better get on that.

4. The economic theories on which you are basing your arguments about scarcity of resources, demand for the resources, and hoped-for resolution of buying less of those products coming from the scarce resources leading to the, again, hoped-for innovation in the hoped-for usage of new resources to continue to sustain our current Western lifestyle is STILL unsustainable. Still. Go back to your Econ 101 class and keep praying.

5. Ignoring the fact that you are practically worshipping James Madison as though he were a god amongst men (I just barfed a little in my mouth when I used "men" as a substitute for "people," but I thought that would be a language you could read) and treating the Constitution in the same way that fundamentalist Christians treat the Bible, let's talk about this whole "promoting general welfare" thing. I know the word "welfare" probably scares you and makes you think of black people scamming crackers or something, but in what way do you believe that ensuring that corporate powers and big business interests don't harm our health and general well-being for their own monetary profit is somehow NOT promoting the general welfare of the people of the United States? Or were you under the impression that corporate interests and their monetary profits are more worthy of protection than the health and general well-being than individual citizens of the planet? I certainly don't trust corporations to care about my welfare. I mean, I know corporations are considered people under US law, but I really didn't know people took that literally. Congratulations, you've made me more cynical than I was before. That's an accomplishment.

5.2. And for fuck's sake, my dad's name is Russell, not James. Stop referring to him as my father, or the father of the Constitution. Did his sperm really join an egg (and if so, whose egg? I never hear about the Constitution's mom-- or was this a reverse-immaculate-conception thing?) that contributed to the actual birth of a large piece of paper with some ink on it?

6. Did you really say that corporations are providing the things we need to survive? I mean, sure, some corporations are doing that, for their own monetary profit, but I'm also pretty sure that, for thousands of years, we got by without corporations taking control of our "necessities." But really? I need Apple products to SURVIVE? I can't live without my Converse sneakers? I will die without my Sony television? The checking accounts I own at a national bank are absolutely necessary to my survival? Is your dad Rupert Murdoch? Oh, sorry, I forgot; you pledge your allegiance to James Madison. My bad.

7. Try as I might, I can't seem to find the part where you explain how wind and solar energy are "nonsense." Care to elaborate on your claim that they are nonsense? Because I just can't for the life of me figure out how in the world these innovations-- undeniably sustainable innovations-- could be the slightest bit problematic. I must have just missed it, though. I mean, you so ardently criticize the narrator here for her apparent omission of truth and unsubstantiated claims and statistics, that I just can't imagine that you would fail to back up your own claims properly. Please, oh wise one, tell me just exactly how solar and windpower are nonsense.

8. I get the impression that you're critical of her claim that we're trashing the planet. Did you think that landfills are not comprised of trash? Which dictionary do you use? I guess I have the wrong one. Maybe that floating garbage island in the Pacific is really... art? Unclaimed landmass, waiting for new inhabitants? What?

9. Mining has been going on since the Roman empire. That makes it sustainable and not the slightest bit problematic. Persecution of homosexuals has also been going on since the Roman empire. I guess I should rethink the whole gay rights thing, too. That must be okay, since it's been going on for a long time. Same with the whole persecution of Christians and burning of witches. Got it.

10. Factory farming of animals for the US's ever-increasing meat consumption is contributing to greenhouse gasses. Oh, right, the air we breathe and our climate will stop being toxified once we... stop... buying... toxification? Because of the whole economic theory you cite. Right. When will that happen, again? I see a lot of big, important, self-described "conservative" white guys hollering about why we shouldn't stop, because it might decrease the numbers in the poor little CEOs bank accounts, the practice of which seems like it may possibly be hurting the people's continuous efforts to start using other, more sustainable methods of living (as you suggest we'll somehow seamlessly and automatically succeed at accomplishing), but maybe that's a part of your precious little theory that you thought you didn't need to share with us. How does corporate greed factor in? I'm sure you have the answer; maybe you just forgot to put it in your enlightening little video response?

11. Please take a geology class.

12. Our current generation's life expectancy has nothing to do with the planets inability to sustain human life and exponential population growth as it is in our current reality. The increase in life expectancy for western civilizations (so long as you're wealthy, white, and have access to healthy food and affordable health care), relative to what it was a hundred or more years ago, is due to advances in medical science, which is due, in large part, to antibiotics and other medications, the rampant usage of which has been directly linked to decreasing the quality of our water supply via endocrine disruptors and neurological and respiratory toxins, which cause innumerable health problems such as obesity and hormonal imbalances, which contribute to infertility in both males and females, and painful, debilitating conditions such as endometriosis, among scores of other things. All of which are predicted to ensure that our children will have a lower life expectancy than that which we currently enjoy.

12. Your critique of her ability to read her own data still doesn't mean that your analysis of her data means anything worth saying out loud, because it's all bullshit which relies on maintaining and defending the support of corporate greed and control.

13. "...[T]hat would be the equivalent of saying that every time we harvest corn, that farmland is gone forever." Oh. So since soil loses fertility over time, which takes a thousand years to regenerate organically, were you trying to tell us to wait a thousand years to keep feeding humanity, or were you advocating shortening our lifespans by continuing to introduce foreign, cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting chemicals into our food and water supplies? A minute ago you used the whole longer-life-expectancy thing to prove some other nonsense point...

14. The fact that some water was undrinkable 200 years ago still fails to take into account the fact that less water is drinkable than what was drinkable 200 years ago. And that the reason that less water is drinkable today than it was 200 years ago is directly due to endocrine disruptors and other pollutants caused by the manufacturing of the mass consumption of, that's right, STUFF.

15. Using a horn sound effect and a bold, red font for the word "Marxism" doesn't disprove any particular point she has, nor does it help your argument any. Indoctrination, much? Socializzzmomgzz is scarrrrrryyyy!!! Take a gorram history class.

16. You attempted to counter the fact that the US uses more resources than anyone on the planet by commenting on how the US uses those resources. Fail. Respond to the statement in question, or shut the hell up. Welcome to the world of hypocrisy and political spin. I nominate you for mayor of said world.

17. You keep failing to explain how your critique of the exponential growth function fails to account for the fact that, regardless of the resources available on the planet, they're still finite, and therefore unsustainable. No matter how many uses for new resources we can find-- if we're able to combat the rampant corporate greed that is currently stifling all efforts to create sustainable energy sources and ways of living, as you keep saying will "just happen," even though you simultaneously claim that we don't have to do anything about it-- the earth's resources are still finite, and therefore unsustainable!

18. Why do you keep acting as though resources becoming scarce is no big deal? What part of "finite" do you not understand?

19. I think you heard the word "strawman" somewhere, and, as a result of not having a valid counterpoint, you just thought you'd throw it out there for Glenn Beck & Co's approval. Because the labor that they "trade" us for their resources is... um, mean. Are you really arguing that paying pennies a day to people working in inhumane, unhealthy, and arguably immoral conditions is in some way desirable? Maybe we aren't talking about the same earth. Perhaps you live on a different planet, one that doesn't value human life, so long as the humans in question aren't in your immediate circle of wealthy, American white dudes. How would you like to earn a few dollars a month for all that labor that allows others to apparently guiltlessly consume iPods, clothing, and other consumer goods that you manufacture, but can't even realistically expect to afford to purchase in your lifetime? Good thing for you that you happened to be born and raised in the United States, or another Western or "first world" nation. Or were you under the impression that people in third world countries like their conditions, and if they didn't, there's a free plane ride to a new life in the ever-welcoming US? Hahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Aww. You're cute.

20. "What is an 'original forest'? Are we starting in Pangaea?" Okay. That was funny. But only when taken entirely out of context.

21. You said that the reason why trees in the Amazon aren't being replanted isn't surprising is because no one owns the Amazon. So-- god, I'm almost spitting up my beer, this is too funny-- if no one owns it, how is it that anyone gets the rights to use the Amazon's resources? You seem to believe that, if no one owns nature, we (who, exactly?) can destroy it at will, but that we need someone to "own" it in order to keep it alive and sustain it. As if this lack of private ownership of nature is a problem. Is this a real belief, the one where you think that private ownership of pieces of our planet is actually beneficial to humanity's existence? Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha.

22. What in the bloody hell do you consider "significantly improved"? Relative to what? Jesus H. Hell on a bloody popsicle stick, what do you mean?!

Apparently, the turdburgler has several more "parts" to his "critique." I may tackle those later, when I have the time and patience to watch them. Stay tuned.

Why I hate advertising, pt. 4986

Thanks to my chemistry-nerd husband, I now have a better understanding of the chemical makeup of... makeup. Anti-aging creams, in particular. Allow me to attempt paraphrasing this newfound knowledge:

For the most part, products that claim to "erase wrinkles" or "invigorate" the skin for the purpose of decreasing the signs of aging, are creating a temporary illusion of skin tightness. The astringent qualities of the product tighten pores, creating a more even, youthful appearance, and a waxy or oily substance remains on the skin, allowing the effects to remain in the skin until it's worn or washed off, hours later.

I shamefully bought an undereye revitalizer... thing, the other day. I never thought it would happen to me, but since I turned 26, I've been preoccupied with the fear of looking "old." I'm self-conscious about undereye circles and "bags," and I noticed a mouth wrinkle, omg. So I actually bought a product that promised to lessen the appearance of undereye "puffiness" and circles.

I went home and read the instructions. It said to apply to a clean, dry face in the morning (and you can wear it under makeup, it says!) and at night, before bed.

I used the stuff this morning after I showered, before work, keeping in mind my newfound chemistry knowledge. It did, in fact, "burn" a little, in the way that suggests something medicinal, which I guess we're supposed to find reassuring. The instructions said to "pat" the area until it was absorbed. The thing is, after using the recommended amount of product on my "eye area," there was so much that I could pat for 20 minutes without making much of a difference. So I resorted to light rubbing, and then eventually started to just spread the stuff a little outside the prescribed "eye area."

Anyway, my eyes were less puffy, and for the rest of the day, I felt a slight pulling at the corners of my eyes. It was the waxy coating that the eye crap left behind.

What really gets me is not that it's just an illusion, but rather the fact that they instruct the user to apply is in the morning and at night. We've already established that the results are temporary and dependent on the product remaining intact on a person's face. The product does not work like Zoloft; it's not released throughout the bloodstream at intervals and dependent on a regular schedule of consumption. The cream works until it's washed or worn off. If you tell someone to wash their face, and then (quick!) put some more stuff on, the user will only continue to see the results of the product. Even though it's useless to wear while sleeping, as the further instructions are to use morning and night, on a clean face. So, that would require you to wash your face in the morning before reapplying it.

Clearly, they are attempting to simply make you believe that there are benefits to using this product more often than (you know to be) "necessary" so that you will use more of their product, and therefore have to buy it more often. And using it at night, as they needlessly suggest, will cause the user to think that the product is really making a long-term and sustained difference, as promised.

Their clever little advertising tricks drive me up a wall. It's the epitome of manipulation for personal gain, and it's infuriating.