CSotD: Scuttled butts
Skip to comments
"Why, yes, they are. That's why I wear the cape."
Harry Bliss on a crossover between yoga pants and Underoos, to which I just added a punchline that could cost me my Man Card, because one of the things we're not supposed to let slip is that yoga pants are not pants. They are tights. Shhhh.
The cartoon isn't based on that, mind you, but it may be that Bliss thought of the gag when Market Place had an item the other day about how Lululemon's stock had gone up.
That news made me think of the Great Transparent Revelation Gaffe, when not only did women in yoga pants reveal every contour to anyone walking behind them, but apparently also the fact that those contours were being made by actual buttocks.
Or so I read. As a gentleman, I invariably avert my eyes.
The problem resulted in a shareholder lawsuit, but the judge was able to see right through it.
An alternative reading of the joke is that Batman risks revealing his secret identity by wearing shorts over his yoga pants, because Bruce Wayne is, in fact, a very successful businessman and has the dress-for-success thing down.
Mandatory EEOC compliance statement:
This outfit is also remarkably comfortable.
Not recommended for the office either.
And while we're on the topic
Pooch Cafe notes that there are places where checking out each other's butts is perfectly acceptable, but I'm appalled and think we need to call in the Society for Indecency for Naked Animals to protect those poor dogs from exploitation.
High on the wings of SINA, we fight for the future now;
Let's clothe every pet and animal, whether dog, cat, horse or cow!
G. Clifford Prout, our President, he works for you and me,
So clothe all your pets and join the march for worldwide Decency!
S.I.N.A., that's our call: all for one and one for all.
Hoist our flag for all to see, waving for Morality.
Onward we strive together, stronger in every way,
All mankind and his animal friends for SINA, S-I-N-A!
And with that as a segue
Alan Abel played upon the foolishness of the media well before the rise of the hair-spray brigade, and, if he could hoodwink Cronkite, the rise of drama majors in journalism is no excuse for the atmosphere David Horsey mocks in his latest cartoon-plus-essay.
It's a challenging piece, because he's right about two things:
1. The media is eager for something, anything, to disrupt the boring march to November
2. Conventions were a lot more interesting before they became infomercials.
Part of me decries the suspicious-bordering-on-vicious distrust of some journalists. Andrea Mitchell seems to assume everyone is lying to her, which is kinda funny given that she covered the White House and the economy for years without revealing that she was dating Alan Greenspan.
Unless that's why she assumes dishonesty in everyone else.
On the other hand, I was appalled by the chummy way Trevor Noah managed to get through an interview with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz without asking her to justify or elaborate on anything she said.
Goo'ness gracious, dude, this isn't the dog park. Avert your nose!
Somewhere in the middle, however, are the Jon Stewarts and Terry Grosses, who press for real answers with discipline and logic but without rancor. It can be done, which makes it more disspiriting when it is not.
Still, I have to agree that not only would a brokered convention be more entertaining, but that it would be more important, because it shows the American people the process.
Let them watch the sausage being made, before it gets put on the plate for them to eat.
More than that, I see no reason to cover the conventions when they are simply a coronation. If the political parties want two or three hours of Prime Time to cheer and drop balloons and congratulate each other, hand them a rate card and let them write a check.
Otherwise, put it on CSPAN or the Home Voting Channel or wherever. It's not news and it's deceptive to treat it as if it were.
Different kind of transparency
Here's a thoughtful essay by Sean Kleefeld on the problem of white male creators writing about non-white, non-male characters.
It's a tough topic because, when you speak up in support of white male creators, you can find yourself in with some mighty scummy company.
However, Kleefeld lays out the situation realistically and fairly:
In light of so many creators getting their work ripped to shreds when they attempt to include some minority character(s), those same creators are reluctant to make further attempts at inclusion. They'll be content to "write what they know" and stick to their own white-privileged experiences, rather than try to bring a spotlight on some other group.
And since the industry, in general, doesn't do a very good job including minority creators, we're left with a glut of stories about white cishetero men. Which obviously doesn't help matters any since it just continues to promote the status quo.
Right on both counts:
There need to be more creators who represent the underrepresented.
And there need to be more stories that include the underrepresented.
We can't wait for the former before we have the latter.
However, the creator Kleefeld spoke to represents the answer to this seeming dilemma, which is modesty and self-awareness: He recognized his discomfort in writing about a Black man in the 19th century, and so addressed it by researching what that man's life would be like.
Which is excellent advice even when you are writing about your own people. There's plenty of slap-dash pseudohistory coming from all sides, based on assumptions and on self-congratulatory myths.
Any responsible writer should know to check it out before you pass it on, and what Josh Billings said applies regardless of race or gender: "The trouble with people is not that they don’t know but that they know so much that ain’t so."
And it's rare that anybody's horseshit illuminates accurate history.
Comments
Comments are closed.