Body Image

 Last time I spoke about the issue of skinny shaming of women, which is only one of the problems associated with unrealistic body image. The topic about female images in the media has been widely discussed, with correlations found between looking at models and felings of depression and self-loathing, eating disorders, and in general unhealthy behaviors as a result of dissatisfaction with oneself.

This, however, does not just apply to women. More and more images of the “perfect” male body type have pushed men to their own eating disorders and detrimental use of steroids or other harmful supplements, all aimed at achieving abs, biceps, and looking like the latest beach photo of Hugh Jackman. And while the issue has been widely addressed for women, it is still very closed when it comes to men. They have been ridiculed for their shortness, fatness, skinniness, and other aspects of their appearance that do are not in the category of masculine. There is no “Real Beauty” campaign for men, you can rarely see an overweight guy in movies without him being the funny man, who compensates for his looks by providing money or entertainment. If a man is fat or short, this is always discussed and connected with stereotypical complexes. If they are not dreamy, they are not worthy. This needs more attention. 

Skinny shaming

If you spend some time randomly browsing the internet, you are bound to run into what has turned into an anti-supermodel mantra: “Real Women Have Curves”. That’s not very nice. Actually, shaming girls who are skinny by nature, or by choice, is just as detrimental as making fun of those who are overweight.

The fat girls get a bad reputation for having no self-control, not taking enough care about their appearance, and to be honest, just bad genes (think of people who are at the gym trying to lose weight, and still they are being made fun of as they are running on the treadmill). Skinny girls are on the opposite end of the spectrum – they are believed to be too much concerned with their looks (even if their body shape is just the natural result of a fast metabolism), and often time they are urged by random strangers to just “Go eat something!”

So next time you post an image like this one, think about what you are saying. You are not making it ok for women to look like themselves, whatever their body shape, you are just switching the single desired body type to a few kilograms more.

The five second rule

Do you eat food after you've dropped it on the floor? What if it stays there for more than five seconds? Common “knowledge” will have you believe that if you get to it within the first five seconds, the bacteria hasn't transferred yet, and the food it safe to consume, wile if you eat it after that time frame, you are exposing yourself to bacteria, and therefore potential disease.

This is bullsh*t.  Multiple studies have been conducted using various foods and various floor surfaces, and most of the time the surface makes more difference than the time which the food was left on it. In general, if the floor is dirty and contaminated (and some infectious bacteria, like salmonella, can survive on tile and other surfaces in significant amounts for over four weeks!), you should not be eating it. If, however, you keep your kitchen floor pretty clean, and you wash your food again before you eat it, your body will probably be able to deal with any bacteria that gets into it without making you sick, regardless of whether it has stayed there for three, five, or ten seconds.

Antibacterial Soap

Is you regularly buy SafeGuard in order to protect yourself from all the spreading bacteria, and eventually disease, you should stop and throw it away. Here’s why.

Antibacterial soap doesn’t work. Yes, studies conducted in a lab setting have shown result in decreased amount of bacteria on the subject’s hands. That is, if they wash their hands for at least 30 seconds. And guess what – when you test their actual ability to prevent communicable disease, antibacterial soaps fail miserably. There is absolutely no difference between them and regular soap – they just don’t work as they claim they do.

However, that is not all that antibacterial soaps do. Due to their chemicals, they lead to an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria. And not just on your hands, either. When you are finished washing your hands (or some people even shower with them), all that water and excess soap goes into the water supply and contaminates it and marine life with such antibiotic resistant bacteria, eventually leading to its overall increase in the environment.  Furthermore, antibacterial soap has been linked to several allergies and asthma. So people, just stop using it. Its not doing you any good, and it is potentially causing a great deal of harm.

Clothes

Have you ever wondered why we wear them? There is the obvious reason – to protect us from the elements of nature, but animals have no such need. Well, there are two main purposes. Firstly, hygiene.  The general disgust we feel towards bodily excretions coming from, um, our covered areas, is pretty sound – it stops the spread of disease and generally keeps a more sanitary environment. That should get some ladies reevaluating the length of their skirts and the seats that get in contact with their bare asses as a result. Secondly, humans dress out of modesty. Why does that matter? There are some pretty compelling advantages, and yes, they are mostly surrounding sex. Wearing more clothes results in less sexual availability, and therefore more selective breeding. It means you are not ready to get on with just anybody, or maybe at all. Not making babies all the time leaves us with more time for the important stuff - like taking care of the ones we already have. This is a more necessary thing in humans than in any other animal, since we take the longest time to develop our brain and be able to take care of ourselves. In the end, it all makes sense. So next time you are putting some clothes on, please, cover the essentials.

Monkeys pt.2

Upon second glance:

Some people may differ from this story based on a number of flawed assumptions, both tangible and philosophical, and therefore it may teach the wrong lesson. Consider this question: If, at the end of the story, a monkey tried to climb the ladder, how do you know whether the scientists would soak the monkeys with cold water or not? Answer: You don't. However, the author has assumed that the scientists would not, and used that to imply that the monkey's actions were pointless. However, there is no data to support that assumption. In fact, historical data strongly indicates the opposite assumption, and that the cultural wisdom the monkeys inherited from their predecessors was indeed valuable. As for the philosophical question of whether it makes sense to continue a behaviour when you don't know the reason behind it, I ask the opposite question: Does it makes sense to change a behaviour when you don't know the reason behind it? All things being equal, it makes most sense to continue on with the behaviour that is currently working for you. Unless there is data showing current behaviour is no longer the best approach, or the change has a clear opportunity for a benefit and we're willing to take a calculated risk, continuing the current behaviour helps us avoid paying for the same wisdom a second time. For those who still disagree, I give you one final argument: When raising your kids, when you told them not to do something, did you always provide a solid reason, or did you sometimes fall back on "Because I said so"? In those cases, shouldn't they have been able to do what they wanted because they didn't know the reason not to? Of course not, and that's my point: Wisdom is there for a reason, and while sometimes we need to go against it, we should be very cautious when we do.

Monkeys pt. 1

Here is a nice science experiment that I would like to share with all of you:

A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle they place a ladder with bananas on top. Every time a monkey went up the ladder the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water. After a while every time a monkey went up the ladder the other ones beat up the one on the ladder. After some tome no monkey dare to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation.

Scientists decided to substitute one of the monkeys.  The fist thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder immediately. The other monkeys beat him up. After several beatings the new member learned no to climb the ladder even though he never knew why. The second monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The monkey participated on the beating for the second monkey. A third monkey was substituted and the same repeated; the fourth was substituted and the same result; finally the 5th monkey was replaced.

What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never received a cold shower continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.

If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder, their answer would be:

‘ I don’t know, that’s just the way things are done around here’ Does this sound familiar?