« Women, II | Main | Protecting the Powerful and Ignoring the Afflicted »

July 02, 2010

Sexism, Misogyny, Misandry? VC Asks, You Decide

I'm creating a new category - Sexism Watch - rather than continuing to put these items under Battle of the Sexes.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that both men and women have all kinds of attitudes towards the opposite sex that, whether or not they translate into actual sexism in practice, aren't terribly different.

I don't like the terms "misandry" and "misogyny". Over the years I've stayed away from using labels like misogyny because it seems odd to me (on the one hand) to insist that there are very real differences between men and women and on the other, to characterize any mention of these differences or the disparate public policy preferences that might flow from honest contemplation of these differences as as "misogyny".

Misogyny isn't discrimination or disparate treatment. It is - quite literally - contempt of or hatred for women. As a woman I neither hold women in contempt nor hate them and yet I favor some forms of legalized discrimination against women and oppose some forms of legalized preferences for my own sex. I do so, not from any dislike of women, but as a function of the costs and benefits such policies entail for society at large.

Lately I've noticed the term "misandry" being used indiscriminately to describe any language or policy that is perceived as being unfair to (or disparaging of) traditional masculinity or men. There's just one problem with that: that's not what misandry means. Misandry is hatred or contempt for men. Using hyperbolic and exaggerated language when it's not warranted has the effect of defining real hatred/contempt for men down. It's precisely the kind of "shaming language" feminists have used for decades to discourage debate and discredit opposing viewpoints without the tiresome necessity of actually having to demonstrate why they're wrong.

Such hyperbolic debate tactics are nothing more than thinly veiled ad hominems that seek to discredit an idea by impugning the motives of the speaker rather than discrediting the idea by demonstrating why it is wrong. The intended message is, "All those who believe X do so because they hate cute, fluffy yellow ducklings. Since it is irrational to hate cute, fluffy ducklings of any color, the ideas of duck hating haters can be dismissed without further examination".

It's what Thomas Sowell - in a phrase I just love - calls "arguments without arguments":

Sowell is perhaps more convincing when he identifies the demonization of opponents as the favorite rebuttal of the anointed. The refusal to accept the goodwill of one's opponents — as a starting point for honest debate — is an all too common device employed by the anointed, according to Sowell and this writer's personal experience. This often leads right away to personal attacks. From John Stuart Mills' admonition of Conservatives as the Party of Stupid to pacifist J.B. Priestley's assertion that the British public favored war only out of ennui and the desire for patriotic displays, Sowell portrays the ad hominem as a first line of attack.

Should insults fail, the assumption of the moral high ground is the second wave of attack: How can one defeat an opponent who presents him or herself as more compassionate toward fellow humans or presents themselves as more caring about the beauty of nature and the state of the environment? As Sowell aptly puts it:

While the conflicts between the tragic vision and the vision of the anointed can lead to innumerable arguments on a wide range of issues, these can also lead to presentations of views that take the outward form of an argument without the inner substance of facts or analysis — in other words, arguments without arguments.

I've never seen any evidence that men are any more sexist than women. On the other hand, I've seen no evidence that they're any less sexist than women. Since it's Friday and this has been a really long week, today I'm just going to throw out some amusing items and let you all do with them what you will.

Men of VC, science comes to your rescue:

Guys who hate going to the store have the perfect excuse to stay home: Shopping could render them impotent. Some receipts harbor a gender-bending chemical that could suppress male hormones in the body, according to research reported in the Daily Mail.

The hazardous compound, known as Bisphenol A (BPA), can be ingested by shoppers when they handle their receipts and then handle food or touch their mouth, researchers found.

"A substance like that could shift the balance of the sex hormones in men towards estrogen," said Berlin-based urologist Frank Sommer, according to the Daily Mail. "In the long term, this leads to less sexual drive, encourages the belly instead of the muscles to grow and has a bad effect on erection and potency."

So the next time your SO tries to drag you to Bed, Bath and Bored Beyond Belief, you may thank the Editorial Staff for providing you with an ironclad excuse.

Golddiggers can't help it - they're wired that way:

Researchers say that women with low IQ's are much likelier to pursue rich men than females who have higher intellects.

The experts say the reason is not so much naked greed, rather an instinctive urge to guarantee a secure financial future for any potential children.

The study may throw a fresh perspective on the actions of the late Playboy model and school drop-out Anna Nicole Smith, who was dubbed a 'gold-digging blonde bimbo' after she married 89-year-old billionaire James Howard Marshall.

Moral of the story: if all the women you date seem to be unduly entranced with your wallet, perhaps your own selection criteria merit a second look?

Who can identify the problem with this virtuoso display of confirmation bias masquerading as "science"? (courtesy of Fuzzy)


… single moms tend to be more involved, set more rules, communicate better, and feel closer to their children than single dads. They have less difficulty monitoring their children’s whereabouts, friendships, and school progress. Their children do better on standardized tests and have higher grades, and teenagers of single moms are actually less likely to engage in delinquent behavior or substance abuse than those of single dads. Go, Murphy Brown.

The quality of parenting, Biblarz and Stacey say, is what really matters, not gender. But the real challenge to our notion of the “essential” father might well be the lesbian mom. On average, lesbian parents spend more time with their children than fathers do. They rate disputes with their children as less frequent than do hetero couples, and describe co-parenting more compatibly and with greater satisfaction. Their kids perceive their parents to be more available and dependable than do the children of heteros. They also discuss more emotional issues with their parents. They have fewer behavioral problems, and show more interest in and try harder at school.

I see several logical errors. And not just for the authors' position.

Good news/bad news:

Children who converse with their father “most days” rated themselves 87 out of 100 on a happiness scale, while those who rarely talk to their dads scored a 79. The study results, released by the Children’s Society in Great Britain just in time for Father’s Day, called the findings “highly significant” because research has demonstrated that a person’s well-being later in life has a lot to do with their relationship with both parents during the teen years.

Of the 1,200 children in the study, who were 11 to 15, nearly 50% said they “hardly ever” talk to their dads about important subjects, as compared with just 28% who report rarely discussing important subjects with their moms.

Just plain good news (except for those Dads who don't believe they ought to have to support their own kids):

When Penn State sociologist and demographer Paul Amato researched changes in nonresident father-child contact over the past 30 years, he found substantial increases in the amount of contact. The percentage of fathers who reported no contact with their children went from 37% in 1976 to 29% in 2002.

Amato, whose work was published in the journal Demography, learned that nonresident dads’ involvement in their kids’ lives varied. Some 38% were highly involved, but 32% were rarely involved. The highly involved dads tended to have kids who were older at the time of the breakup. They were likely to have been married at one time and to have paid child support.

Yikes. A woman's work is never done.

Nearly ten per cent of women wear false or acrylic nails and nearly one in twenty wear extensions in their hair to make it more full and lustrous.

More than half of girls regularly get their hair highlighted or coloured and 19 per cent regularly resort to wearing fake tan to look more sun-kissed.

One in twenty secretly apply false eyelashes and nearly one in twenty have even tried coloured contact lenses and ultra expensive teeth veneers to appear more beautiful - and still kept quiet.

An honest 17 per cent said that people would be utterly shocked if they saw how they looked minus hair extensions, fake tan and perfectly waxed eyebrows.

WOMEN'S TOP BEAUTY CHEATS

1. Shave or wax legs
2. Plucking eyebrows
3. Applying make-up
4. Shave or wax underarms
5. Highlighting / colouring hair
6. Pedicures
7. Fake tan
8. False / acrylic nails
9. Wax or shave bikini line
10. Bleach facial hair
11. False eyelashes It'
12. Hair extensions
13. Waxing facial hair
14. Pluck nose hair
15. Regular facials
16. Wear coloured contact lenses
17. Teeth Veneers
18. Eyelash extensions
19. Botox
20. Permanent make-up

Posted by Cassandra at July 2, 2010 09:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3757

Comments

Good lord, so much to cover... let's see...

I'll take "A woman's work is never done" for 200 Alex.

This interests me, because my wife does so little of it. Of that twenty item list, I know she shaves her legs and armpits, applying make up she rarely does ("lipstick is not makeup," quoth she, "it is an essential nutrient"), and I think that's about all. She definitely doesn't fake tan or bleach or botox or any of that other mess.

But what's more interesting to me is the "why" of it. Is it ALL for our (men's) benefit? I suspect mostly, but not all. I believe in the past even you have fessed up to getting a bit gussied up not for the Unit, but for yourself or the public in general, dear hostess.

And to be fair, I myself have (at one time) worn colored contacts, I do pluck my nose hairs (hirsute nostrils are unattractive, but also annoying). But I also trim (or groom) my beard and mustache. And I have plucked between my eyebrows. And so on. So it's not just ladies "suffer for fashion".

Posted by: MikeD at July 2, 2010 01:50 PM

Before reading that article I thought that I was doing "a lot"!

I grew up with a Mom who didn't wear makeup most of the time or color her hair. I've pretty much always worn just a bit of makeup. I don't Botox or go in for hair extensions, fake eyelashes, nails, bleach, wax, blah blah blah.

When I was in Cali I had a young Corporal's wife that I was working with for Family Readiness. She was awfully cute but when she told me that she regularly spent over $160 a month just on her hair (spiral perm, color, cuts) I was kind of nonplussed :p

She also had regular salon manicures and pedicures and facials. I asked her why she did all that and she said, "Because if I don't my husband gives me a hard time."

I think guys must be pretty different in their preferences in that regard. My husband likes (and notices) when I take pains with my appearance but he doesn't really seem to DISLIKE it if he comes home and I don't have any makeup at all on (and since I work at home, I don't wear makeup every day).

That's why I posted the article - it seems like an awful lot of work!

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 02:09 PM

I guess the other question I have is, "Who has that much money to spend???"

I could spend that much but I'd rather spend it on a vacation or on food or household items.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 02:11 PM

I think guys must be pretty different in their preferences in that regard. My husband likes (and notices) when I take pains with my appearance but he really seems to LIKE it if he comes home and I don't have anything at all on.

There, fixed it for you.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at July 2, 2010 02:36 PM

I think guys must be pretty different in their preferences in that regard. My husband likes (and notices) when I take pains with my appearance but he doesn't really seem to DISLIKE it if he comes home and I don't have any makeup at all on (and since I work at home, I don't wear makeup every day).

Yu-Ain's humorous observation aside (true though it may be), I guess I'm more like the Unit in this regard. And it's why I mentioned the motivations in the first place. When the Lovely Bride puts on makeup, it's because we're going someplace fancy (generally involves ties and jacket rather than jeans and sneakers). Day to day, she uses chapstick rather than lipstick, and that's about it. For normal "goin out" she'll use the lipstick (pale redheads' lips, she feels, need camoflage). So she's not getting made up for me.

As for that corporal... odd dude. That's all I can figure. Either that or she was misinterpreting his comments (or perhaps lack thereof) as "a hard time".

Posted by: MikeD at July 2, 2010 02:43 PM

Researchers say that women with low IQ's are much likelier to pursue rich men than females who have higher intellects.

Wait! Who's smarter?

Happy Friday, people.

Posted by: spd rdr at July 2, 2010 03:18 PM

Wait! Who's smarter?

I guess it depends upon whether you want a partner who is faithful. Rich men are more likely to cheat.

Who cares about a big divorce settlement if it leaves you heartbroken and distrustful and your children fatherless?

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 03:29 PM

What is the difference between 'permanent makeup' and a tattoo?

Posted by: Cricket at July 2, 2010 03:32 PM

"...single moms tend to be more involved, set more rules, communicate better, and feel closer to their children than single dads. They have less difficulty monitoring their children’s whereabouts, friendships, and school progress."

Which must be the reason there are so *few* problems with drugs, violent crime, teenage pregnancy, and school dropout rates in the inner cities, right?

Posted by: BillT at July 2, 2010 03:33 PM

Bill, that's all due to racism, doncha know. :P

Posted by: FbL at July 2, 2010 03:44 PM

6 out of 20. Not too bad. Sounds like MikeD's wife and I hail from similar gene pools.

YAG ~ norking Coke across the dining table is NOT fun. Thanks.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 2, 2010 03:49 PM

That's a lot of info about how the father-free parents grade themselves, or how convenient their kids find the disciplinary process, but not so much info on how successfully the kids are really being raised -- unless we can take their word for how well the kids are doing in school and in staying out of legal trouble. A pretty minimal standard, in any case.

Posted by: Texan99 at July 2, 2010 03:57 PM

Wait - shaving is a beauty CHEAT? *gasp*

My Russian MIL refused to shave (pre-stroke). Go ahead, shudder. I did, quite often. She didn't wear deodorant, either, because (and I quote, in my trademarked MIL Russian Accent), "It dries you out." Which I thought was the point, but apparently not.

She doesn't have a lot of friends. I suppose we can argue whether her hygiene has something to do with that, but it's probably like the chicken and the egg.

Posted by: airforcewife at July 2, 2010 04:05 PM

HF6, the Lovely Bride is Scots-Irish.

Posted by: MikeD at July 2, 2010 04:05 PM

Re: Mis-*

That's what I was getting at in this piece from 2008.

What we don't appear to have is a way of expressing a concept that recognizes the real differences between the sexes in a way that honors them. As far as I know, there is no word in the language for a "a sense that though the sexes are genuinely different, both are necessary and valuable." That is to say, we have a lot of ways of describing a problem, but we have no way of talking about the solution.

That was the point at which I decided that reinvigorating the concept of chivalry was terribly important; it has occupied an increasing amount of my attention since then. But that was the starting point, and the reason for the journey.

Posted by: Grim at July 2, 2010 04:56 PM

Cricket,
the "permanent make-up" needs to be re-touched after approx 5 years while a tattoo does not :o)

Shaving underarms and legs, plucking eye-brows, mani-pedi and facials are "beauty cheats?!" Are they nuts??

Airforcewife,
I had a co-worker back in Russia who did not shave underarms either, a young girl by the way, she would go to the restroom and use the air hand-dryer to deal with the natural consequences of hot weather... The first time I saw it I almost fell LOL Then I made sure I never made a trip to the restroom at the same time :o)

There is nothing wrong with spending $$ on the facial - it's good for your skin, morale and looks. I've been doing it since I was 12 (teen break-ups). Here, it is very hard to find a good cosmetologist who knows the European facial so my trips to NYC always include raids on the Russian pharmacies at the dreaded Brighton Beach to stock up on the old-world creams, masks and lotions. Not to toot my own horn but I do look much younger then I really am :o)

Posted by: olga at July 2, 2010 05:05 PM

I guess it depends upon whether you want a partner who is faithful. Rich men are more likely to cheat.

That's fascinating. Is that really true? Sure, when rich guys get caught cheating it's front page news. It's "Tiger Hooks Marriage into Rough!" not "Pizza Guy in Tuesday Tryst with Meter Reader." But does that mean that marital infidelity is any more or less prevalent in one or another socio-economic strata? And if it's true that rich guys cheat more than poor guys, is that because women chase rich guys more than poor guys? Yanno, the "opportunity" part of "motive and opportunity" is greater?

And if I could be even more annoying, let me ask you this: If rich men cheat more often than non-rich men, do intelligent women then consciously strike rich men off of their list of potential mates? "Brad Pitt? Nice enough guy, but he's rich, so he'll probably cheat on me. So I'm setting my sights on Marvin Kublutnik. He's got nothing but potential."

I guess what I'm asking is, do women really go through the calculus when deciding on a mate? All it took for me was mrs rdr was a redhead and she didn't hate me, and a two-fer like that comes along only once in a lifetime.

Posted by: spd rdr at July 2, 2010 05:40 PM

I guess what I'm asking is, do women really go through the calculus when deciding on a mate?

I don't know what most women do. I know what I did and in my case the answer is unequivocally, "yes".

As for whether rich men are statistically more likely to cheat, the answer is also "yes". As are high income/wealthy women.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 05:51 PM

Aaaaannnnnd, more intelligent women look at the line panting after Mr. Very Rich Dude and thing "Meh, I have better things to do with my time. I'll go chat up Mr. Comfortably Well Off."

One of the gents on Varney and Co. this AM suggested that the chemical-laden receipt is a reason to go dutch on dates, lest one lose his manhood. The married men ducked the discussion and the young lady had a rather different view of the matter in hand, er excuse me, at hand.

[small plaintive voice] Is it beer o'clock yet?

Posted by: LittleRed1 at July 2, 2010 06:00 PM

I also read this week somewhere that if a woman offers to go Dutch on a date, she's not romantically interested in you. I don't think this was an actual study - it was one of those dumb articles where women/men tell you their preferences and then generalize from that to all women/men.

I always offered to pay half and then took my cue from what the guy wanted. Even when I was dating my husband (he preferred to pay) every now and then I asked him to go somewhere and told him that I would like to pay if he didn't mind. If that bothered him, it must not have bothered him too much.

It had nothing to do with women's lib. I just thought that was the polite thing to do - not make a big deal of it, but offer at least.

Posted by: The Silky Pony at July 2, 2010 06:57 PM

"A substance like that could shift the balance of the sex hormones in men towards estrogen," said Berlin-based urologist Frank Sommer, according to the Daily Mail. "In the long term, this leads to less sexual drive, encourages the belly instead of the muscles to grow and has a bad effect on erection and potency."

Stop sitting on the couch and eating those potato chips then, you estrogen wannabe fem-males. Don't come crying to us when you should have known better.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 2, 2010 07:03 PM

Neither men nor women are rational around the opposite sex.

Nature and evolution didn't really gear us for success with hormones and emotions on this department. Tool usage, after all, was for extinguishing predators and eating meat. Nobody was going around hunting up women to cook them so the whole tool usage thing was a no go there. No need for rationality, really.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 2, 2010 07:06 PM

As far as I know, there is no word in the language for a "a sense that though the sexes are genuinely different, both are necessary and valuable."

Agreed, no word, but that's only for the English language. Try Japanese for one thing.

But there is an English phrase. The whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Not to toot my own horn but I do look much younger then I really am

Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance, as they say. And that certainly applies to years of planning as well.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 2, 2010 07:14 PM

The concept that men should pay for dates is a holdover from the rule that only men should invite women on dates, and not vice-versa. Because men were the ones issuing the invitation, they were the host and the lady was the guest.

That is to say, it is the ancient rule of hospitality: the host feeds his guest. Because only men were allowed to issue the invitation, only men would ever pay. But if you were invited by a lady to visit her in her home, even in those days, she would certainly feed you at her expense.

When it became OK for women to invite men to restaurants, it should also have become OK for them to pay the way. So, if you were inviting your husband to a particular place at a particular time, then it was perfectly right that you should pay. You were the host(ess).

Posted by: Grim at July 2, 2010 08:54 PM

I count 7:

1. Shave or wax legs
2. Plucking eyebrows
3. Applying make-up
4. Shave or wax underarms
5. Highlighting / colouring hair
6. Pedicures (rarely)
13. Waxing facial hair (only if I am getting a facial/at the stylist and it doesn't cost me extra)

I don't really view shaving the legs/underarms as a "beauty cheat", though.

Plucking (or have a professional wax) the brows just keeps them from getting out of control.

I look tired when I don't have makeup on - I have developed dark circles under my eyes (thought it might be lack of sleep, but I had a doctor tell me it could have come from chronic coughing/sneezing which used to be a problem which can result in the delicate blood vessels in the tissue around the eyes to burst basically creating a bruise...). So, if I want to make a good impression on the people I'll be seeing, I take the time to put it on.

I get my hair highlighted. Helps cover/hide the gray. I don't need to look any older than I am for a number of reasons, IMO.

I don't generally get pedicures. Got a professional one back in March when my best friend was in town and wanted to get one and offered to pay for mine, too. I do occasionally paint my own toenails (did that last night, red polish with a clear polish with red & blue glitter and white stars - that won't last much past the holiday weekend).

As for those other things? Waste of money, IMO.

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at July 2, 2010 09:29 PM

Ymar: Try Japanese for one thing.

何の日本語の言葉でしょうか。

Posted by: tom at July 3, 2010 12:56 AM

Even though I included it in my list, I do not count shaving as a "beauty cheat". I think it's a matter of basic hygiene and cultural norms.

I don't live in France. Therefore I shave.


MikeD ~ northern Irish (with a hint of Cherokee thrown in just to mix things up a bit). I burn if you mention the word "sunlight" out loud.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 3, 2010 03:57 AM

Tom:

partial translation, I assume you are asking what word in the Japanese language is being thought of?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 3, 2010 08:58 AM

I burn if you mention the word "sunlight" out loud.

It's like you got UnSeelie blood or something heh

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 3, 2010 09:00 AM

Ymar ~ you might be closer to the truth than you think...

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 3, 2010 08:18 PM

The other day I was reading about a study of redheads and tanning.

It said that scientists have always thought that redheads burn because they can't produce enough melanin to tan. But when they tested melanin cells themselves, they found that redheads are able to produce melanin (sometimes even more able than those who have darker skin).

The problem isn't not being able to tan - it's that the skin of redheads is overly reactive to sunlight:

a team from the University's Centre for Skin Sciences (CSS) found that in the laboratory, pigment cells isolated from very fair (Celtic-type) skin were able to make as much -- and in one case up to five times more -- melanin than cells from olive (Italian-type) skin, when cultured under identical conditions. However, the fair skin cells did show a higher inflammatory response to UVR than their olive-skinned counterparts. The research, in part funded by the Wellcome Trust, is published in the current issue of Pigment Cell and Melanoma Research.
CSS Director and the study's lead author, Professor of Cell Biology Des Tobin, says: "Research into sunburn has tended to ignore melanocytes -- the cells that make melanin -- as it's been assumed that was all they did. But our research has shown that in some skin types they also contribute to the inflammation that creates sunburn and it's this, rather than their ability to make melanin, that seems to be at the root of how different skins respond to the sun."

Here's the link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100622074826.htm

Posted by: Cassandra at July 3, 2010 10:04 PM

Does that mean yon women are Faeries?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 4, 2010 02:18 AM

And would that make the onna on the top left corner, a pixie? About the size of one.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 4, 2010 02:19 AM

Cass ~ I figured as much. My skin makes wonderful melanin - just not EVERYWHERE. And all of that is overridden by my skin's amazing ability to turn bright red when exposed to sunlight for more than a few milliseconds. And, having spent the better part of the past 7 days camping at the beach, my best friends at the moment are motrin and lidocaine. And Noxema.

Fun times.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 4, 2010 04:29 AM

Cold aloe vera gel. Works wonders, as does witch hazel.

I was a beach bum back in the day...Santa Cruz, CA.

Posted by: Cricket at July 4, 2010 11:11 AM

And all of that is overridden by my skin's amazing ability to turn bright red when exposed to sunlight for more than a few milliseconds.

Simple, HF6, just do like I do -- wear long sleeves and say you do it so the scars won't gross people out. Works every time, especially after someone says, "Show me."

Ummmmm -- you *do* have some scars that'll let you pull that one off, right?

Posted by: BillT at July 4, 2010 01:25 PM

HF6 - I feel your pain. I inherited a double-dose of Celtic coloring. I am rarely seen without long sleeves, long skirts/trousers, a hat and sunscreen. When someone asks "Aren't you hot?" the answer depends on the level of smart-assery appropriate for the situation. Although there are a lot of ranchers who never wear short sleeves, so I blend in out here.

Posted by: LittleRed1 at July 4, 2010 03:08 PM

Cricket ~ the lidocaine is pleasantly embedded in aloe vera gel that sits in my fridge for easy access. Like you, I grew up in SoCal but spent my days at the pool rather than the beach (I hate sand).

Bill ~ I *do* have scars...though they are not on my arms...

LR1 ~ if we ever get off this God-forsaken rock, I'm hoping we move somewhere that I won't look like a circus freak in long sleeves and pants in the summertime. I prefer that to the current attire here.

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 4, 2010 07:13 PM

Back in the day, you could have simply held up an umbrella all the time and nobody would have noticed it as abnormal ; )

Posted by: Ymarsakar at July 4, 2010 07:39 PM

I"ve often thought I was born too late...

Posted by: HomefrontSix at July 5, 2010 01:20 PM

HF6,
I feel your pain, literally... I burn in the shade w/50 units sunscreen... I use the old-fashion home remedy - sour cream. Slather lots of whole milk sour cream on the burnt skin until it stops to absorb (may be up to 7 times) and you should not have blisters...

Posted by: olga at July 5, 2010 01:50 PM

Ymar: I assume you are asking what word in the Japanese language is being thought of?

Yep. Just curious.

Posted by: tom at July 6, 2010 03:27 AM

And all of that is overridden by my skin's amazing ability to turn bright red when exposed to sunlight for more than a few milliseconds.

The Lovely Bride actually got a sunburn on a cloudy day once. True story. My heritage is French/Irish/English, but ironically, the Irish/English side (my mother) tans like nobody's business. My dad burns like he was a redhead (which he's not). True story, in 62' he was an Armor officer at Ft. Stewart and spent all his time in an office or buttoned up inside a Walker Bulldog, my mom spent her days tanning in the back yard. They'd get dirty looks walking down the streets of Savannah, because folks assumed they were a mixed race couple.

Posted by: MikeD at July 6, 2010 10:32 AM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)