don't blame high fructose, blame disproportionate victimization of women by the news media.

I work from about 9 AM to around 8PM every day, with weekends pending (and 8 PM is on a good day). I am not about to get up earlier, and make myself more exhausted, to try and get to the early morning hot yoga class offered at 6:00 AM in the Village. It isn't that I'm lazy, it's that I work 10 hour days (on average) and I am NOT a morning person. Also, for some sad reason, hot yoga is not a 24 hour sport. Those who like to run on treadmills, lift weights, and use machines have the happy advantage of gyms such as 24 hour fitness, but what about those of us who prefer getting in tune with the world to tuning it out?
When my favorite, hot, stretchy exercise option opts out, the next best thing for me is a late night run. I love to be in the cool night air after a hot summer day, and it is a lot more inspiring to be running somewhere, with the grass whizzing by, than working like a gerbil in an air conditioned gym. Here is the problem: I get off at 8, am hungry but try not to eat anything too full of sodium and preservatives so dinner takes until around 9 to be cooked, eaten, and stored. Everyone who runs knows that you should NOT run on a recently filled stomach (unless cramps and stomach aches are your style). This puts me ready to run at around 9:30 or 9:45, 10:00 PM to be safe.
But it is this preoccupation with "safe" that ends up being my problem! I have been reminded my entire life that, as a young girl and now a young woman, everywhere is dangerous. When I'm alone, when I'm on my phone, when I'm listening to music, when it's dark, when it's light, in parking garages, in parks, at gas stations, in hotels, anywhere (it seems) where I am alone is a threat to my safety. Awareness, and an eye critical of ones surroundings, is important no matter who or where you are. Despite the goodness at the center of every human, there is a darkness that sometimes prevails. I'm not saying that a good, healthy sense of caution is bad! I am saying that a media-induced paranoia isn't healthy for anyone, especially not someone as prone to reality-based anxiety as myself.
So, I decided to check out the National Bureau of Justice Statistics to see if my fear was supported by evidence, and this is what I learned:
There is an obvious disparity between genders as the victims of violent crime (a category that includes rape and murder). From graphs who start in the seventies with a dramatic divide, I can see that men are more likely to be the victims of such crimes. As recently as 2005, men were 4 times more likely to be said victims than women. Also, the United State Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)'s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program showed that 78.7% of the known victims of murders were male. Seventy-eight percent is an overwhelming number in a culture where women are supposed to be the main targets of murder and violent crime. So, if men are statisticly more likely to be the victims of murder and violent crime, why is it that our culture tells women that they are the ones who should be afraid? Why should I cower on my couch, feeling lazy and itching for some night air at a park, in fear of something that is unsupported by historical and recent evidence?
The BJS and FBI do, however, note that the only area where women are more likely to be victims than men is in cases of sexual assault. No surprise there. It seems the media was actually being helpful on this one. So, even if I am statistically less likely to be murdered whilst out for my midnight jog, I am more likely to be raped, still providing reason for me to stay indoors, right? According to RAINN, the Rape Incest & Abuse National Network, 73% of of rapes are "perpetrated by a non-stranger." Hm. Assuming that my acquaintances, friends, and family aren't lurking in the shadows at the neighborhood park, it seems to me that this is another false fear that the media feeds us "post-feminist" (just ask Ginia Bellafante) females.
Before I continue, I want to make perfectly clear that I am not trying to treat the subjects of rape or murder, lightly. Both are serious, incredibly violent, disgusting crimes and should always be treated as such. What I am trying to say here is that, according to these sources, we are paying too much attention to the wrong factors, and we are being pushed to do so by mass media. Nightly news reports consistently reinforce the female as the victim. Men are not being sufficiently informed of their susceptibility to such crimes, and who knows what effect this is having on their safety. Women are being told that strangers far from home are the culprits that need to be watched, when really they are in much more danger from the people they already know, and this is all part of a long running conversation that the media has yet to acknowledge and take part in.
Being alert to real danger is good, but being held back by unrealistic fear isn't. I may be nervous, (after being brought up in our culture, how could I not?) but I plan on running when I want, and where I want from now on. I will also try to be more aware of the real dangers posed much closer to home, so I can more effectively protect myself.

Libidoism, or: Why we define gender based on sex drive

Guys do it, girls do it and, it turns out, even biologists do it. Take the fruit fly, for example: Evolutionary biology says that the reason that the fruit fly's sperm are so small and the eggs are so big is directly related to each sex's view on sex. The female fruit fly is programmed to value reproduction highly and be invested in picking the right mate, where the male fruit fly just wants to get it off as much as he can. Hence, smaller sperm. This theory can be applied to a vast number of species including, ahem, humans. But, how does that explain an experiment where female and male fruit flies were shown to be similarly choosy when deciding with whom to get it on?
Girls are brought up, from the moment we are taught about boys and their boners, to believe that guys are mostly indiscriminate in their search for booty. And by the same token, men are taught to believe that sex will always be emotional for women, and that they will have to jack off for days once married because she'll be too stressed/tired/emotional/frustrated/angry to want to do it that night. And haven't you ever heard the "boys will be boys" "men can't help but cheat" crap? Yes, crap. Its always bothered me, this double standard that expects men to be having sex as often as they can while women wait, or are at least much more choosy and emotional about their sexual partners. My question, and I'm sure every other woman's question when first introduced to that idea, was simple: "Who, exactly, do you think these guys are supposed to have sex with, then?"
So, women have a double standard despite three waves of feminism and a sexual revolution. The really annoying thing, though, is that sometimes we put this standard on ourselves. Even those of us who are "sexually active" and not yet married/engaged thus defying traditional standards seem to have certain expectations of what our and our fellow female's sex drives should be. We are all expected to laugh at and understand the old "He wants it all the time, I'm fucking tired!" joke and be able to commiserate about our unfailingly horny husbands/boyfriends/"friends"/partners. But, what about those of us who aren't? What about those of us who find ourselves in that person's bed one morning faced with a seemingly astounding realization: that we, in fact, have higher sex drives than our partners. What does this mean for our femininity? And, more so, for his masculinity? I have been guilty of complaining about my ex boyfriend's lower sex drive, using the phrase, "It's like I'm dating a girl!"And hearing back, "Are you really, really sure he's not gay?" If a man is too tired/stressed/emotional/frustrated/angry to have sex, why do we suddenly assume that something must be wrong with him when we expect ourselves to follow that standard? If a woman wants to have a lot of sex that doesn't necessarily (or too often) need to involved emotion to be satisfied why do we think she has some underlying problem?
If we take a step back and remember the fruit flies, we'll see that they, too defy these gender standards, so why can't we? Why do we feel the need to generalize something that is so complex? I know that I have felt less feminine as a result of my high sex drive, and felt that maybe something was wrong, and I assume that there have been men in the past who felt less masculine as a result of their emotional connection with/lower need for sex. So, if we know these exceptions to the rule exist both socially and scientifically, why do we continue to define the genders this way?
I don't know, but I do know that I'd like to tell that ex boyfriend that I'm sorry. I'm sorry I called you a girl, because the truth is I thought it was impossible for you just not to want it and felt offended when you wanted to sleep. I took it as a reflection of my attractive...ness... in your eyes, and thought that if you, a man, didn't try to sleep with me every time we were in the same space you must not want me. I'm sorry I held you to a standard that didn't reflect who you were at all, and I'm sorry I gossiped instead of telling you that I wasn't satisfied. I will try in the future to judge a man by who he is, not by how well he matches up to the socially constructed masculine identity, in hopes that he will not see me as less of a woman for wanting more (less emotional) sex. And, you know, my insufferable "guy nod" habit. :)