How to insult women

Boy, she did you a favor

I grew up on Long Island where insults are stock and trade.  Find a weakness and exploit it.  That was the ethic.  Whatever your ethnic group, ancestry, religion or skin tone might be, you should expect it to be attacked.  If you couldn’t handle it, you were unworthy.

Although I try to reel it in, the tendency still shows up when I let my authentic self out of its pen.  My sense of humor can be biting. 

Men in nearly all cultures thrive on insults.  Some years ago, I signed a new client in my office.  Spotting a picture of my beautiful wife and me on the credenza, he said, “Boy, she did you a favor!”  It was a perfect ‘guy comment’ – both a compliment and an insult at the same time. 

My family is mostly male.  I grew up with two brothers, fathered two sons (one of whom is married to a man) and just became a grandfather to – you guessed it – another boy.  So, the Calia Y-chromosome of my paternal grandfather will carry on for at least another generation. 

What comes of all this masculinity?  Lots of insults, all meant in fun.  It’s how we bond. 

The entry of significant numbers of women into the professional ranks of the workforce beginning in the 1970’s changed the dynamic.  Court rulings have imposed a degree of risk on employers who must reign in a “hostile work environment” or face the consequences. 

I would personally argue that hostility comes in many forms and, while language is certainly part of the puzzle, it is not the final determinant.  Everything must be looked at in the context of a relationship. 

The coach assigned to help me launch a Vistage peer group pulled no punches.  She hit me right between the eyes with every comment and criticism.  She correctly perceived it was just what I needed.  Upon our success in launching the group, I sent her a certificate that granted her the title “No Bulls--t Broad”.  She was delighted at the joke and displayed the certificate prominently in her cubicle. 

Leaders of the pack

Absent our relationship, referring to a woman as a broad would be disparaging, at least since the Rat Pack passed into the annals of history. 

Still, I wonder where and how we should draw a line?  I mean if it’s okay to read ‘chick lit’ or take a date to a ‘chick flick’, why isn’t it okay to call a woman a chick?  And, is the blurry line between jocular fun and the damaging rhetoric of today’s pop culture contributing to a much larger problem?

This past week, the light sentence received by a white student-athlete at Stanford University for a rape he committed has caused a national outrage.  Refusing to be silent, the rape victim has written an open letter expressing her feelings.  It’s a powerful document that will resonate with everyone who enjoys a healthy relationship with a member of the opposite sex – father/daughter, brother/sister, husband/wife.

Its power has been enhanced by a video in which  the staff of the New York Daily news reading the letter aloud.

Here it is.  Prepared to be stunned.

I once served on the board of a Florida non-profit, Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse (AVDA).  The greatest challenge we faced was the silence of the victims.  So, the courage of the Stanford victim’s letter and the importance of its attention from the media and prominent people are not lost on me. 

Jesse Wallin (Stanford class of ‘08) founded an organization called Men Against Abuse Now (MAAN) in 2007.  Its web page begins with a prescription for “What Men Can Do…” reflecting that “words are powerful” and that “We live in a society in which words are often used to put women down, where calling a girl or woman a “bitch,” “freak,” “whore,” “baby,” or “dog” is common.”

So, I wonder.  Was I treating my female colleague as an equal when I gave her a compliment that was also an insult?  After all, that’s how I would have treated a male colleague.  Or, was my language contributing to a national problem? 

There’s a larger question for society, of course.  Will the Stanford rape case coalesce the efforts of organizations like AVDA and MAAN around a cultural shift that will make such events less likely?

I would like to think so.  But I’ve been wrong before.  I incorrectly predicted that the Newtown shooting would change our attitude about guns.

What do you think?

We might have a green energy future if...

Beijing smog in January 2013

A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times published an article about the successful roll back of green energy mandates in Ohio.  The writer made it sound as though the evil fossil fuel lobby convinced gullible legislators to “freeze the phase-in that utilities must buy from renewable energy sources”.

What disturbed me about the article is that it made no mention of the economic considerations.  If the original plan, passed in 2008, was allowed to go forward, what would happen to the cost of energy in a state that has seen its manufacturing jobs heading for other places for many years?

As a society, we prefer a clean environment.  No one wants his or her kids to breath dirty air or drink polluted water.  We have all seen pictures of the smog in Beijing.  And, Ohioans over the age of 50 can remember the sight of the Cleveland's Cuyahoga River on fire in 1969. 

But, can we have our cake and eat it too?  Can we eliminate fossil fuel energy without causing economic calamity?

That question will be subject to the usual partisan politics that have affected all of the important issues of our time.  And, once the new EPA mandates are made effective next year, there are bound to be battles fought in court.

But, if we can get past all that, is it feasible?

The new mandates require each state to reduce its output of carbon by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.  Ten states have already met that requirement.  Four of them (New York, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts) – members of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – have reduced carbon by nearly 40%.

Cuyahoga River on fire in 1969

So, how will we get there?

Everyone has a theory, it seems.  Many are intriguing.  Fresh Energy CEO Michael Noble posits that an ultra low carbon system can be set up through a hybrid of nuclear and renewables.  The idea of nuclear energy sets off alarm bells in the minds of many Americans.  However, it has been used safely to provide 75% of the power in France for over 30 years.  And, new technologies, such as the use of thorium rather than more volatile light-water reactors, make nuclear safer than it has been in the past.

A Stanford University research team led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson has developed a roadmap for each of the 50 states to reach 100% sustainable energy by 2050 using existing technologies.  Stanford’s roadmap suggests we replace fossil fuel plants as they age out so as not to drive up costs.

Whatever roadmap we, as a nation or state-by-state, decide to pursue, there will be bumps along the way.  Projects will stall.  There will be cost overruns.  The promised benefits will be under delivered.  And, whenever that happens, opponents on the political right will say, “I told you so”.

From the left, we hear that the green lobby has criticized the new EPA mandates as not being aggressive enough.  Any suggestions of energy sources that will provide a “bridge” to a sustainable future are unacceptable to them.  However, economic feasibility is an important criterion in order to maintain the support of the consuming and voting public.  In the near term, converting power plants from coal to natural gas will reduce both cost and greenhouse gas emissions.

New methods of extracting natural gas (hydraulic fracturing or fracking) have made this alternative to coal inexpensive and available.  The conversion from coal to natural gas can be done so quickly and cost-effectively that 15% of US power plants will have converted by the time the new government mandates kick in at the end of next year. 

The abundance of natural gas within our borders promises to reduce oil imports and provide cheaper electricity while the alternatives are being developed and scaled.  Bans on fracking and pipeline construction that will deliver natural gas safely and cheaply are counterproductive.

Further, fears about the dangers of fracking are unfounded.  According to Scientific American the question isn’t whether it can be done safely.  It’s “will it be done safely?”

What are essential are careful planning, flexible regulations and the support of a well-educated public.  If we can get past the usual tug-of-war between the extreme left and right, we can achieve a sustainable energy future without damaging our economy.

The only question…

WHO WILL LEAD?