Ha! That's hysterical!

Greetings from the West. Oh, you should have seen the sun set tonight. A wondrous array of colors: peaches and oranges and bananas? No, not quite.

(applause/laughter)

This post is not intended to be about me, per se, but I want to share with you something very important that's happening in my life. I'm helping high school students quit smoking (standing ovation, hurrah).

As a non-smoker who ex-smoked, I don't remember anyone at school taking an interest about my constant puffing. Maybe they didn't know. But they should have.



That's me smoking. And being blonde at Coney Island--now that's another story!

Anyway, it's a pleasure of mine to share knowledge and experience with these students. I'm grateful to have the opportunity, really.

(in unison: "aw!")

So, hysteria. That's what I'm thinking about. I've been hysterical all day about the prospect of having a hysterectomy when I'm only 23. Oh wait, no, that's not me, I just heard that story from someone else. She wasn't hysterical either. Funny, it's probably because she doesn't have HYSTERIA, you know, because it DOES NOT EXIST.

Ah, and then we return to the New York Times. The pulse of the universe. And we've all been victimized by the Times, but none more than women.

Okay, let's remember Times sexism together:

- Men are better at telling if someone else is angry, which is pretty obvious if you already think that all women are like Helen Keller (and she was a tremendous woman, don't get me wrong, but you know what I mean--deaf, ..., and blind). Ol' Hell--that's what we used to call her--she could never sense anger in another human being, unless Annie S. (or Sully) rearranged the furniture on her.

- What else. Oh, Maureen Dowd. Enough said!

- The most feminine of Times sections, 'Fashion & Style,' consistently has the stupidest articles I've ever read. I suppose they consider certain "trends" they've "discovered" to be fashionable and bearing style. I don't. I'm not them, though.

- "Is Hysteria Real? Brain Images Say Yes" is today's prime example. I'm certain you and I could create a nice scavenger hunt as we search (lightly) throughout the Times for sexist suppositions.

This article about hysteria is in the Science section--hilarious! This would be better suited for Fash/Sty.

You see, the Times will fool you. You might begin reading an article, laugh a bit about the idiosyncracies the writer leverages for your attention. Oh yes, then you'll come across a line like this: "The word [hysteria] seems murky, more than a little misogynistic and all too indebted to the theorizing of the now-unfashionable Freud." You'll think, "Oh, NYT, that word is a little bit murky." You'll be glad they concede to the misogynistic overtone, and you'll switch off you're critical meter for the rest of the article.

Don't do it. Hysteria should be something better left for Women's Studies classes when we say, "Man, the APA really manipulates gender in the DSM, doesn't it? Let's all makeout." No, I'm kidding about the "manipulate" part; 'tis too strong a word.

This article claims that there have been symptoms of hysteria, and that these symptoms have never gone away since "The Yellow Wallpaper." Well, now there's brain imaging to prove that women are crazy .. because they're women. Really, all they had to do was check between our legs, and they'd know why we act the way we do.

See, let me unfold the logic I'm using: "Hysteria" is an affliction that can only affect females. Thus, it is supposedly defined by female-specific behaviors, which therefore turns the cycle a few degrees further--how do we define females, then? Depends on whether they're hysterical or not. Men are stable, women are unstable. Hysteria, as an idea in our culture, corroborates the assumed instability of women.

When the NYT throws around some half-assed experiement with a microwave, they make an impression on the world, unfortunately. Oh, so when women are getting their periods and feel really irritable and uneasy and irrepressible, and just acting down right different, it means they're hysterical, right? Wrong, of course, but there's always a "lay" trickle down of a word, and this is how it's gonna go down.

Of course, they mention that there is no univeral diagnostic criteria for hysteria among doctors. Does this even matter? NYT has already told me that hysteria still exists! NYT likens hysteria to a paralysis similar to that of a deer facing a semi-death truck. I'm embellishing that statement some. They remind us that women embody stress in our culture. It's nice that there isn't a diagnostic criteria for that, eh?

Here's my beef: What if it's something different? Are we settling with an antiquated misogynistic term because it's available to us? (Because we can?) Is it because this new brain imaging has something to do with Freud (and cocaine)? If we create a new neurological disorder, and do more research to see if by any chance this happens in men, can we have a new article? "We" = all women.

Thanks NYT. Thanks for caring and shitting all over us yet again.

I know the source for uncritical perspectives and sexist topic choice! And it ain't FOX!