Amazon Ad

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Are There Really No Lady Potheads?

I stumbled across this article today by way of Gawker. I found it more than intriguing, and thought I might add some insight to the topic here. But before I do, here's a little snippet of the article in question (one that I disagree with completely), which can be found in it's entirety here:

"Men are allowed to be lazy--being stoned is part of their farting, pajama-wearing, video-game-playing pantheon of acceptable male relaxation techniques ....Their sloth is even kind of adorable. But modern women are not allowed to be lazy, adorable stoners. Women have to go to college (which they're now doing at higher rates than men), and then get their careers going quickly, before their biological clocks run out. Then they have to have kids and take them to all of their activities. There is no time for women to be slovenly and relax--and if women do relax, it has to be at a gym."

The above quotation is actually taken from a real article, and not just some quip from a less-than-informed whistle-blower at gawker, who by the end of her article called pot smoking 'retarded.' And it's worth reading the entire article, as it adds actual insight to this sociological anomally. The shorthand analysis of it at Gawker, however, is addled with absurdity and pomp.

I won't even get into how rude it is for someone to use the word 'retarded' to mean stupid, dumb, foolish, whatever our vernacular dictates that it means today. But the type of person that says, "man, that's retarded," is probably also one that uses the phrase, "that's so gay," to mean virtually the same thing. Know your words if you're a journalist, and don't belittle the retarded community because you can't think of the appropriate word to use in your so-called article.

With that said, I am not a journalist. I am an amateur writer who enjoys picking fights with his words. This just happens to be my newest conquest. And not to fear, kind readers, I am emailing Gawker and alerting them to this post. Sure their crackpot team of writers will tear me a new one, and I'm fine with that. But this post on their page came from a writer known only as 'Emily;' the title of her column simply being Femiladyism.

I am not a regular reader of her column, but I can only assume, given the title, that it revolves around issues relevant to the equal representation of women. Not just that, but also correcting some of the male driven myths in the world that tend to dominate our society. After all, for those rooted in religion, myself not included, women have been to blame since day 1.

Do I agree with this? Not in the least. But do I think that someone trying to create equality for something she thinks is important should use such derogatory words as 'retarded' simply to belittle pot smoking? And furthermore, who really cares if men smoke more pot than women. It isn't a contest. If it is, and health is involved, then good on ya women! You're winning!

I never was here to debate whether or not men smoke more than women do, though I do agree with the fact that it is, for some reason, more socially acceptable for men to do so. I did, however, set out to identify that anyone who has an opinion that bold who writes about it, and then uses the word 'retard' as a part of their social commentary on that subject...well, to me it's nothing more than a crutch that hides someone who just wanted to bitch about marijuana to begin with, and really had no opinion for or against women in correlation to the subject.

Emily, I'm ready and waiting...

No comments: