I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised at Dr. Keith Ablow's recent commentary about J. Crew's Creative Director, Jenna Lyons. He clearly has a thing for her. Remember when she painted her son's toes neon pink? Remember when he stated that this image was part of a transgender agenda and would surely lead the little boy into years of therapy? Remember when Ablow made the link that boys wearing pink would make them question their gender identity? No? Okay, here it is. And here is my original response to his preposterous claims.
I thought that after Toemaggedon 2011 (coined by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show), this would all just go away. However, Jenna Lyons is back on Ablow's radar because she is getting divorced and currently dating... wait for it... a woman. Yes, Jenna Lyons is dating a woman. Does this now make her a lesbian? Does this make her bisexual? Who knows. And really, who cares?
Oh, Keith Ablow cares. And his care for her has caused him once again to evaluate the issue of the pink toenails. According to Ablow, Lyons' new relationship is disturbing:
What it says is that my worry that Ms. Lyons might be expressing her own discomfort with masculinity and projecting it onto her son -- and mine, and yours -- seems to have been justified.ÂWait. What? Having a relationship with a woman means that you're uncomfortable with masculinity? Hold on, what is this, the Stone Age? Are we still making the assertion that lesbians hate men and gay men hate women? What about bisexuals? Do they love everyone or hate them? This line of thinking (perpetuated by a media Medical Correspondent) is factually incorrect, dangerous, and in this case, misogynistic. He gives so little credit to women that he assumes that one failed relationship with a man would make us despise all that is male. Oh, and did I happen to mention that Ablow makes sure that his readers know that Lyons was the "breadwinner" in her marriage? Obviously she's a power hungry woman who wants to put men in their place and this example of challenging traditional gender roles is exactly what Ablow wants to stamp out. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself:
See, I don't think it's so terrible that boys are different than girls. I think it's just fine, in fact, that a central supporting beam of the architecture of most boys' senses of self is that they look like boys and act like boys and feel like boys. I don't think that's pathological. But I think that Jenna Lyons -- and maybe J. Crew -- would disagree with me.Last time I checked, boys are different than girls, Keith. They have different genital and reproductive anatomy. They also have different amounts of testosterone and estrogen. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at. More importantly, let me pose the following question: What on earth does it mean to look like a boy, act like a boy, and feel like a boy? This idea that there is one very limited expression of boyishness and (eventually)masculinity will cripple our society. It will perpetuate stereotypes, the sexual double standard, homophobia, transphobia, and gender inequality of all kinds. Hair length, clothing color, preferred hobby, does not change whether or not someone has testicles and a penis or a vulva and vagina. Nor does it mean that one has issues with their gender identity. It means that for this brief moment in time, this is what one likes. That may change tomorrow or it may change ten years from now or it may never change.
In the end, I am more than uncomfortable with Ablow's statements. I am frightened by the notion that there is one "right" way to be. Hasn't history already taught us that this is a deadly line of thinking?
Follow Dr. Logan Levkoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LoganLevkoff
Laverne Cox: Hung Up on Our Bullies: Internalized Transphobia
Jeffery Self: Little Boy Witches
In fact, these kinds of attacks are just typical right wing fear mongering. They attempt to instill in people a fear of social change, because (for example) "left wingers are trying to turn all our boys into girls", or other equally preposterous lies.
This guy is just part of the backlash used by the right wing, to frighten people into supporting their atrocious political party - the Republicans.
In fact it's basic objectification. I don't believe these kinds of men can connect very well with other men either. They are used to treating people as objects to be used. Almost a sociopathic personality in other words.
It is worrisome that someone can be threatened by a color, though. But those who have to "prove" their masculinity are usually the most insecure anyway, right?
What is considered masculine and what is considered feminine have changed over time and will continue to change whether Mr. Ablow wants them to or not. And sexual orientation is not a result of how masculine or feminine you are.
Toe nail polish is their kryptonite.
Perhaps we should check on all those manly specimens that passed through that locker room over the years to see if there have been ill effects. Sure haven't heard about any!
My husband wears a pink shirt, too. Guess I'd better start questioning his sexual orientation. We all know that color preference equals sexual orientation. *eye roll*
BTW: Do you know where I might confirm it?
Fair (as in C-) and UNBALANCED.
How much impact did I have on either of these preferences? Zero. In the same way that I had zero impact on my oldest daughter's revulsion over wearing a dress as a young child turning into her asking for a special dress for an 8th grade dance. In the same way that nothing I've done has caused Cinderella to "eat" my youngest daughter, who loves all things sparkly and sweet.
If anyone can provide proof that refusal to denounce these childhood preferences causes mental illness (as Ablow implies) or same-sex attraction, please...I'm all ears (or eyes, in this case).
In any case, you will find no proof of cause and effect from these people. They are just promoting fear of difference, in order to increase their political power. Effectively just defining who is in the tribe, and who is the other.
These men who, when they are disparaging women's behaviour as well as gays, are really mourning the old days when it was them who had power + influence.
Instead of embracing today, which is inclusive of people being different, they pathectically cling on to the past.
Fox, you,re in enough trouble now with people going to other channels when they can. I suggest you look closely at the future people you employ + tell those you,ve already employed to get with the times.