I Kind of Love...

...This tampon commercial:



It is the height of awesomeness (h/t The Sexist)!

Also, this print ad:



I kind of feel compelled to buy Kotex products now. Power of advertising, huh?

Be sure to read the backstory of the ad, and how three networks rejected it when it contained the word "vagina". Yeah, I know. How crazy to discuss the "v" word when you're advertising tampons. I'd totes reject that ad too, because I can't see the connection.

On pretty much the same note, these ads remind me of this Clear Blue Pregnancy Test commercial:


I, however, don't want to buy this one. Advertising (in general) still isn't that good.

Both the Kotex ads and the Clear Blue ad eschew what normally find their ways into tampon and pregnancy test ads. They're interesting. They're fun. They're engaging in a way women twirling around in white really very rarely are. And the tampon one even takes on the weird blue liquid factor.

Stamp of approval!

Women As Bodies: Climate Change Legislation Edition

Hi! I'm all into the environment and stuff. I want to help enact climate change legislation! I have womanly parts, and I'm not into the ladies. Want to know how to not encourage my pursuit of a better world? This video!

Wow, is that bad. You know what this reminds me of? A post I wrote just around this time last year! I'll just quote myself, kay?

It is demonstrably for the man's pleasure in these adverts; and it is more of a bartering system, a tit-for-tat, than it is an actual expression of healthy sexuality. And that is deeply problematic. Women have the right for their sexuality to be their own; men have the right to not be treated like brainless sexaholics.

And here we are again, this time with models stripping for climate legislation. So, let's revisit this in a little bit more detail, shall we?

Ahem. Women and women's bodies are not bartering tools to get men to do good deeds. This is because women and women's bodies are, primarily, for women. To live in. And reducing a woman's (or even these specific women's) contribution to how hot she can make the guys, actually, more than a little sexist. In fact, it is a lot sexist. As is the implication that the way to make guys do something like focus on climate change legislation (or, as in the last post, voting for Obama) isn't through reasoned discussion or facts but by the chance to see some naked ladies. Because it suggests that (a) a woman's only power rests in her ability to sex up a man and get him to do what she wants, and (b) men are animals controlled by their libidos.

But there are some other problems with it; those are that the men are the actors. Men are the ones responsible for getting climate change legislation passed and done (and I say "men", because I very much doubt the masterminds behind the ad thought about lesbian response). Women are cast in the role of encouraging men to do good and fight the good fight, and then reward the great Climate Change Heros with some nudity.

But I can act. I can act, I can write letters, I can call my representatives in Congress, I can write letters to my local newspaper, I can write blog posts, and I can do all of those things while Being A Girl. And a lot of the girls I know can do all of those things while Being Girls as well. And this ad? Doesn't touch on that. It doesn't encourage any female action other than the getting naked bit. Maybe it is assuming those models have already written their letters. And yet, nada is mentioned about that possibility. Nada is mentioned about encouraging other women to write letters, to agitate for change. And what a way to cut 51 percent of the population out of a larger part of the solution than just being the body worth doing something to see.

Women As Bodies

Or, as objects. Bodies as Objects? I don't know. But consider this the start of a new series, one where I put concrete examples to my assessment of women being seen primarily as bodies. Whether or not I'll keep up with it is anyone's guess.

(h/t Shakesville)

PETA: Turning Over A New Leaf?

PETA as an organization has a repeated and varied history of being sexist, racist, and classist (and oftentimes combining two or more of those), along with being generally unsympathetic to humans in their epic quest to save the animals. They are an example of a "Greater Good" organization, seeming to believe that turning women into sex objects (again and again - and again), dressing up like the Klu Klux Klan, linking murder and cannibalism to slaughterhouses, and equating factory farming with the Holocaust is justifiable in seeking to codify the ethical treatment of animals. A huge problem with this type of campaign is that it equates people who already occupy a lower position in society, people who have historically been considered or compared to animals, people who in many cases still are, with animals - and expects this to be revolutionary and educational.

And yet, there is a recent PETA ad that isn't controversial, that doesn't seem to be sexist, and that is almost... cool. Cloris Leachman is featured in a new PETA ad, clad in a fabulous cabbage dress:

While I don't know that this ad will make anyone suddenly become a vegetarian, I do think it is beautiful, and beautifully done. Leachman looks strong, and powerful. The dress itself looks like a work of art. As an individual ad, I think this is a win. It is a good use of a celebrity; it isn't outwardly sexist, or racist, or classist. It is noncombative, and still visually interesting. It has the added benefit of being reminiscent of Austin Scarlett's Corn Husk dress from the first seaon of Project Runway (only less dried out):

And yet, Ophelia over at Feminocracy wonders whether or not this ad is an example of ageism:

Placing Cloris in a lettuce dress reaffirms the sentiment behind their previous ads–that the female body is meant for consumption, and when that body begins to show age, it must be covered to protect our sensibilities (however, it is worth note that the dress conforms to her figure–so they’ve got to have their sexy factor in there).

In terms of PETA's history, I think the hypothesis is worthy of examination. As much as I love this ad for its individual merits, its place within the pantheon of PETA ads warrants extra attention. After all, PETA has called women 'hags' before, and with every other sexist and racist action, questioning why Cloris Leachman in particular - out of all of the women featured in PETA ads - gets the full body cover is valid. It isn't that I want Cloris Leachman to be objectified or nude in the ad; I suspect Ophelia does not want that either. However, while this may seem to be a way a marginalized body wins out when it comes to objectification, it instead reinforces the idea that after a certain age women become undesirable or asexual. It plays into the way we view how women age; how women become undervalued as their skin wrinkles and their hair grays. Men become 'distinguished' and women become 'old'. It is a familiar trope in everything from business to film; Nicholas Cage can be a viable romantic partner for Jessica Biel, but a friend of mine had a problem with Cher being considered a viable romantic partner for Cage when a mutual friend attempted to show her Moonstruck. The difference between Nicholas Cage and Jessica Biel? 18 years. The difference between Nicholas Cage and Cher? 17 years. This isn't to pick on that friend, because the older man being a logical love interest is fairly common. After all, Sean Connery was a leading man through 1999, when he played opposite Catherine Zeta-Jones in Entrapment; she is 40 years his junior. Meanwhile, women in films become mothers. Sally Field played Tom Hanks' mother in Forest Gump; she is only 10 years his senior.

However, ageism doesn't seem to be the case in this instance with Cloris Leachman. A couple of other ads similar to Leachman's were also made by PETA, one featuring Alyssa Milano:

and Pippa Black:

Both dresses show a bit more skin than Leachman's. They're both more flirtatious (and I kind of covet that pepper necklace Black is wearing), but all of the cabbage dresses are reminiscent of formal wear. 

The problem comes with the promotion featuring Alicia Mayer:

While the others are stylized ads, this one does just seems to be a candid photo much in the vein of PETA's usual publicity protests. The others are of white women. This ad is of a Filipino woman. I don't think we can ignore that aspect of the overt and specific sexualization contained in this image versus the sexy but not exploitive pictures of the other three. This could just be a product of the different environments. But this isn't the only picture treating women of color differently than their white counterparts. The same kind of ad as the Cloris Leachman, Alyssa Milano and Pippa Black ads features the model Kadra:

Her outfit is once again in a different league than the white women who are also focused upon. This demonstrates a similar kind of distinction between the ads Ophelia was concerned with in regard to the Cloris Leachman ad. Different categories of women are being treated differently by PETA. And that difference is incredibly problematic. It is again a reminder of the different ways women are sexualized, and how minority women are oftentimes over sexualized. The ads are a serious issue, no matter how much I like the Leachman, Milano, and Black ads. In the light of other PETA ads, these seem to recognize that their treatment of white women was an issue; but they continue to pull the same old sexist crap in relation to women of color. And it leads to this question: if the way white women are portrayed is changed, why continue framing other women in the previous fashion? Why create a series of ads with different visual stimuli? Why not place all of the women featured in vegetable formal wear, or all of the women in vegetable bathing suits? I doubt PETA could offer a cognizant explanation for the differences.

When I Teared Up

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."
- President Barack Obama

As an atheistic apatheist (not only do I not believe there's a god but that I honestly don't care), being included in an inaugural address is a pretty big deal for me. I mean, I have had people stop talking to me because of my atheism; I have been mistaken for a Satanist due to my atheism; and more than once people have reacted as if I've betrayed them in some way by being an atheist and not Catholic like they normally assume. To be included in the bigger picture, to have my nonbelief offered up as a strength for our nation, is pretty moving for me. It gives me hope that one day, being an atheist won't be something that elicits a horrified reaction; it gives me hope that one day, being an atheist won't immediately be equated with the opposite of goodness; that being an atheist won't immediately make someone assume that I am not trustworthy, or a liar, or that I am a thing to be pitied; that I am only an atheist because I don't want to own up to my sinful ways, and if I only knew of the glory of God, that I would be saved.

One of the stories on Talk of the Nation on the 15th was about atheism and the advertising of it in a public square, focusing mainly on the bus ads that had been present in D.C. during the Christmas season, proclaiming that we should be good "for goodness' sake". The idea behind this discussion was atheist activism, how others felt about it, and if there were more atheists now than ever before. I don't know if there are; I honestly don't care if there are. It doesn't make any difference to me if we make up 2% of the population or 50% of the population. What I do want is for atheism to be recognized as a perfectly valid belief. I don't know if bus ads or billboards or a mention in an inaugural address is enough to do that, to validate a belief that goes against the core beliefs held by many in the nation. But it is a start, and it does make me feel a bit more accepted.

George Will In Top Form

I read George Will at least once every two weeks, when he arrives in my mailbox on the back page of my Newsweek. I look forward with anticipation to the Anna Quindlen weeks; not so much with the George Will weeks. I like George Will fine. I'm pretty sure my liking of the electoral college system is due to a column he wrote in defense of it when I was younger (I'd put myself mid-teens), and I was not only swayed then but remain swayed now - even though I'm very very liberal. I'll get into my liberalism and why, in spite of that, I want my nation's highest office to move slower than molasses in most instances at some point, but right now I'm going to hang a right turn and get back to George Will. Because George Will is inflamed. He is incensed. And he is, aside from the periodic weeks of craziness that come with my Newsweek (about a month ago, he was deriding the idea that people should vote by mail, something Oregon has done for about a decade, along with mailing out handy-dandy cheat sheets, because it will lead to lazier voters), incredibly on the mark - at least in regard to McCain. Which should come as no surprise, given his ire toward the Arizona Senator has been growing for quite some time and written about thoroughly.

His current article at the Washington Post, which is not a replica of the article appearing in the back of this week's Newsweek (that one deals with the economy along with gas prices and foreign relations and, oddly enough, Franklin Roosevelt), is about many things. It highlights, once again, the ridiculousness of the Palin pick. It offers anecdotal evidence of McCain's black-and-white world view. And it lambasts both public finance for campaigns and limits on the amount of money a single campaign can collect from donations. What George Will does here, what he is continually able to do even while taking into account his moments of insanity, is to make me reassess an issue I was previously on the fence about. The electoral college was one such issue; and now campaign finance becomes another. I've always been on the fence about the spending frenzy the Obama campaign has waged. I've liked (even been enamored) with Obama since 2004; I remember the Boston DNC well. One day, my Newsweek is telling me about up and coming politicians and political figures and profiles a guy I couldn't care less about named Barack Obama; a couple of days later, I'm watching an electrifying key note address and frantically trying to find said Newsweek article again - digging, sometimes perilously, through the recycling to see if it had possibly missed the previous curb deadline (for the record, it didn't). But something about the amount of money he amassed and the way he spent it left me unsettled. Part of this is rooted in pragmatism. At some point, the Republicans will probably have an electrifying star like Obama; in which case, the tide will have been turned and Democrats will be inundated with ad after campaign ad and not have enough funds to launch any kind of counterattack - successful or no. Ronald Reagan can't be the only one. But there is a deeper issue at root here. We all know the studies that proclaim we are incredibly susceptible to advertising and its message. I'm not so great with advertising; I get it from my father who thought that Buddy Lee, the creepy doll, was advertising Levi's. That isn't even his most ridiculous advertising offense. I have those moments a lot too, where I'll assume my preferred brand is the one being advertised even when it is, to the not-insane viewer, clearly not.  But even I don't think I'd manage to turn many McCain ads into ones about Obama.

What I am incredibly susceptible to, though, is starting to like something (a song, a movie, a television show) that I had originally hated simply based on repetition. I'm not proud of it, but I've become fond of such songs as The Macarena and even Baby One More Time (which is apparently the Britney Spears' single's revised name, as Jive Records thought Hit Me, Baby, One More Time condoned domestic violence; the things you learn through a quick internet search). What I'm saying is, had I been living in a state in play and not my tried and blue Connecticut, I'm not entirely sure that if I'd started off with a vague disliking of a candidate - or even outright hatred - a constant barrage of ads for that person would not change my mind. If McCain had more money, I may have *gasp* ended up voting for him! Well, probably not. But the fact remains that if we are as susceptible to advertising as studies show, and if the government has mandated that the amount of air time for one candidate has to be granted the other, how is it in any way fair or democratic to have one person out of the two dominate the game? If we outright acknowledge the effectiveness of ads of any type, it seems strange to shrug at the effect these ads may have on picking the next president of the United States.

Now, I know that logically some of the most powerful of ads have only been used once - or in moderation. After all, the daisy ad from Lyndon Johnson only ran once, but it helped cement Johnson's win. It helped Johnson's case, of course, that Barry Goldwater was a nut. And I respect George Will's thought that "Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support". I even agree with it. I love the idea of being able to contribute whatever little bit I can to a campaign I support, and to know that I and others like me can help a candidate we believe in. I love that donating to a campaign is a direct way to participate and become entrenched in that campaign. I love people getting passionate about politics, and any way for them to do so is - in my book - a wonderful thing. And I love that it does not matter what level one can contribute; that just contributing can make a person feel empowered and energized and enfranchised. George Will is right; support cannot be mandated. Support cannot be punished. And so I suppose that George Will wins this round. I think I may have come around to the idea that limits on campaign spending only limits democracy and our direct contact to the democratic process.

"Hey Jason, You'd Better Hurry Up - I Gotta Lower My Cholesterol"

Sarah Haskins makes my day!

The Importance Of Cookies

One of the perpetual issues in feminism (and actually progressivism) is how to make what was formerly "women's work" more equitable in terms of gender and in terms of the distinction and emphasizes the significance and value of that work. We fight consistently for women to make distinct choices, to allow women to enter the workforce and various kinds of workforces or to stay at home and raise their children and take care of the house. We fight for gender equality, and we celebrate the in-roads we make in terms of women succeeding in fields previously dominated by men and we celebrate women challenging stereotypes and the gender binary. At the same time, we don't seem to do quite as much for the men who challenge their own privilege and lend their voices and actions toward working for gender equality by making alternative life choices. For men who stay at home with their children, and help with the dishes, and cook dinner, and do the laundry, the response more often than not is, "What, do you want a cookie or something?"

I'm as guilty of this as the next person. Some of my most hated ads are the Klondike ads that pronounce "So-and-so listened to his wife! Get that man a Klondike bar!" or "So-and-so put his dish away! Get that man a Klondike bar!" No! Men should not be 'rewarded' for doing things we should expect them to do anyway. And we should not have media that reinforces the idea that men who do things like listen to their wives or clean up after themselves are extraordinary and worthy of special treatment in some way. But at the same time, I do believe that we should get more in the habit of positively reinforcing the challenges some of these men present to the gender binary.

Human beings are social creatures. And generally, we want some sort of recognition for our actions, especially positive recognition. And that is where the importance of the cookie comes in. We should be praising men who make an effort to check their privilege. We should be holding these men up as role models for other men; yes, men have been, as gender, more likely to get more than their fair share of cookies throughout time. Yes, even today, men will get more cookies than women. But that makes it almost more important. We need to make doing the right thing seem appealing. We need to socialize men -just as we need to socialize women- to expand upon what is expected from them. We need to get to the place in which a father being an equal caregiver for his child is not extraordinary, where a husband is just as likely to wash the clothing or clean the house as his wife. But first, we need to reward the men who do make that leap. Yes, they should be doing so anyway. But they are consistently inundated with images and media that says otherwise; and they get praise and suffer nothing if they are lackadaisical about taking up the mantel of implementing change. They will forever get unearned cookies for maintaining, however passively, the status quo. Why not give them a few cookies for actually proactively working to undermine those gender assumptions? Why not offer some words of encouragement to the father who does stay home with his children, for the husband who does the majority of the cooking, for the man who protests commercials that make him and his children out to be slovenly fools? Why not hold these men up as examples -not examples of someone doing something extraordinary, but someone doing something that is right? Why not make doing what is right appealing?

We do this for women. Women were ridiculed for wanting preposterous things like the right to vote or hold a job, or even play a sport. We found women to highlight and to make an example of what women could accomplish. We offered praise to women who fought against discrimination, who tried (and sometimes failed) to break the multiple glass ceilings women have faced over the years. Men may be the privileged gender, but they face their own "glass floors". Men are expected to adhere to gender norms, perhaps stricter gender norms these days than even women are held to. After all, women can almost do it all - we just have to be pretty and feminine. We will still encounter opposition, but wanting to play with the boys or being interested in sports or liking more masculine colors are not scorn-worthy offenses anymore (liking math may still be). But men are either heralded as the Best of their Gender if they know how to cook and like to clean or will take the baby for a day, or derided for being the stay-at-home dad and looked at oddly for wanting to see the next romantic comedy. We need to change that; and one of the ways to do that would be to emphasize what these men are doing right and how we should expect no less. It both gives these men the recognition most humans crave, and also reinforces the notion that this behavior should be the norm anyway.

Oh, Those Kooky PETA People!

A few days ago, I wrote about PETA's double whammy of insensitive "advertising". I've found a picture of the ad they want to put on the border fence between Mexico and America:

To that, I say, "Wow".

PETA Sinks To All New Lows

I'm sure most people know about how bad PETA is in terms of public relations and how they have continually dehumanized women, their reason being, "We're justified in using women's bodies to make our point because that's the only way we can think to get people to listen to us". And while there are many counterpoints to be made to such a statement, like the fact that they're dehumanizing women and women are continually a portion of society looked upon as objects anyway, those points have been made countless times by many people.

But it turns out that PETA wasn't done. No, those ads comparing the Holocaust to factory farming wasn't the end of the extreme, nauseatingly bad campaigns PETA could come up with. I was appalled when Feministing reported that PETA sees the border fence between America and Mexico, the one that is destroying natural wildlife habitats and communities like Naco, Arizona, as a golden opportunity to spread the message via billboards on the wall reading "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will --Go Vegan" in Spanish and English. Because that's not callous in the least, right?

But then, I found something worse: PETA is using the recent Cannibal-On-The-Bus tragedy (the one that made Greyhound reverse their "There's a Reason You've Never Heard of Bus-Rage", something I found morbidly humorous) to highlight the similarities between what happened to Tim McLean and what happens in slaughterhouses:

Yeah, I thought the border fence was a low blow; but this is beyond the pale. I really have nothing to offer, except how sickening I find this whole ad campaign and how disturbed the whole of PETA's advert board has to be to think ads like this do anything to further their cause.

Another One

So it turns out I missed one of Sarah Haskins' brilliant Target: Women when I compiled her videos earlier in the month. So here is another bit of Sarah Haskins to brighten up your Tuesday:

A New Crush-Worthy Individual

My list of intellectual crushes is growing rapidly, it seems. There's that one on Jessica Valenti, on this guy, Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon, and many others. And now there is a new one: Sarah Haskins. I'm not the only one who has a love for her. She is just so cool, she even made me visit Jezebel after that incident with Moe and Tracy led me to promising myself I never would. So sit back, and enjoy a veritable plethora of her video offerings, guaranteed to make you laugh. Or at least smirk a lot. I sure will. I also liked her more serious comments on NPR.

"I lost the narrative thread"

I love Martin Scorsese. I don't like his movies as much as many people, though The Aviator kicked ass and The Last Waltz is something I can watch over and over again. Plus, I'm really looking forward to seeing No Direction Home: Bob Dylan. But no, Martin Scorsese's films are not why I love him. It is his commercials that earn him my devotion. From American Express:

To anti-cell phone PSAs for the movies:

I think it is the eyebrows. Or maybe the quick, sharp delivery. Whatever. He makes me laugh, and I want him to be on my tv screen all the time.

Cookie?

I kind of love this video, but how hard would it have been to look up American Gothic and note that the painting does not depict a farmer and his wife but a farmer and his daughter? Not very, because I just did. Courtesy of the Art Institute of Chicago (great museum, by the way):

[Grant Wood] asked his dentist and his sister Nan to pose as a farmer and his unmarried daughter.

Surveillance is High

Attention: I am seriously considering disconnecting myself entirely from the internet, my cell phone, credit cards, places that take my picture as I enter under the guise of a "fun" family momento, and also E-Z pass. Sure, these things make my life easier (with the exception of the "fun" family photo), but seriously. It has got to stop. As someone who is just this side of paranoid, the constant surveillance is starting to push me over to Tin Hat County.

What caused this recent rash of paranoid behavior? Well, as probably none of you know, I spent the weekend in Rhode Island, specifically Providence and Newport. I used my computer while I was there, because obviously I have a serious addiction that will probably need a support group of some kind to get over (though I didn't have time to actually write an entry while there or after I returned). One of the places I visited was Facebook, because -once again- addicted.

So today, I sign into Facebook and along the side is an ad for a shop in Newport. "Huh," I thought to myself, "how odd! I was just there!" I go to the next page, and there's an ad for cellulite removal ("dramatization: results not typical"), the next page, an ad for Obama gear (I don't want an Obama shirt, leave me alone!), and on the next page, an ad for the Providence WaterFire; this was something I went to and it was awesome. They put bonfire type things in the river and light them on fire -after a rather long wait. Then everyone mills around, because it extends quite a ways up the river and down the river; it was ungodly hot though, so I recommend it as more of a "fall" venture. There was also a street fair. Overall, a "10" on the awesome sliding scale. So my thought on this was "Oh, I did that! It was cool!" And then a couple more pages with things like "Single and 22?" (why, yes, actually; how kind of you to notice) and "Shop for engagement rings!" (haven't we just established that I'm single and 22?), there was suddenly an ad for Newport again; the Newport Jazz Festival, August blah-blah through blah-blah. And now, I've got a creepy sense of foreboding, like someone who is being tracked by the government feels.

I'm pretty sure we're already on government watch lists; my father is a guy who is a registered Republican but has voted for Nader the last two elections, and frequently writes the government letters disparaging their goals and practices. He once wrote Joe Lieberman a letter that ended with the line, "If you continue to support this foolhardy war, I must come to the conclusion you have taken a permanent leave of your senses", and when my aunt was visiting the Capitol on business and had a chance to send the flag that flies over one of the government buildings to my sisters for their birthday and had to get our address, the first thing that popped up when her congressional guide searched for our address was an angry letter my father had written to the FDA about GMOs and Frankencorn. Which was a little embarrassing for my aunt (the story gets better: when the flag arrived for my sisters with no return address or note of explanation, and my parents jumped over to full fledged paranoid state because my aunt had forgotten to tell them what the flag was and why it showed up at our house; obviously, we know now). 

He is also a frequent caller to the White House; the first time was after he'd had back surgery and was left to his own devices for something like 6 hours. I came home from school to find him in a loop where he kept getting connected to the White House gift shop. That would discourage other easily bored people, but my father wanted to get through so he could tell Bill Clinton (or an aid to an aid to Bill Clinton) that he approved of whatever it was that Bill had done that week; he finally did. These days, I imagine the phone calls aren't quite as congratulatory.

What all of this means is that I'm starting to feel as if I live in an Orwellian situation, like I'm only outside of government (or advertising's) scrutiny when I stand in one corner of my room. Although, my computer is in here, so not so much. I want to be literally free to move about the country, without being tracked or photographed or monitored; I don't care if a majority of these images or information will never be seen by human eyes. I don't care that Facebook advertising is more than likely dictated by some kind of formulaic code and that no one really knows where I've been all weekend unless I tell them. Because the information is there, and it can be found. Like phone records. I want to have a little bit more liberty, and a little less security. I was at a museum built at the site of the 1969 Woodstock concert, and there was a booth where people could leave messages for one another. "Bill, I'm on the left side of the stage". Yeah, so Bill probably never found his friend at the left side of the stage; but I kind of like the go with the flowness of it all. I like safety precautions; but I'm thinking that we're taking it a bit far, that we're turning into a people who have grown complacent about consistently being monitored, that we're growing into a people who really are starting to believe that it doesn't matter if people are watching if you're not doing anything wrong instead of recognizing the importance of privacy for privacy's sake.

And so, if I weren't as addicted as I am and if I didn't have problems with substandard sanitation, I would definitely go off, build myself a shack, and disconnect from this as much as I could. Live without having my purchases, reading habits, movement, and moods tracked. But I am addicted, I am jacked in, and I don't foresee leaving any time soon. But the time may very well come when I try to lead a revolution against photos the next time I'm pressed into a fake background and told to smile. Especially when I'm told they're for "security purposes".