Friday, February 12, 2016

Outrage 2.0

Certain issues require top notch outrage.  Guns, reproductive rights, education, exercising the franchise .... these are Outrage 1.0.  I wax eloquent on those subjects and I expect that people will listen.  I'm expressing an opinion on topics of vital interest to every sentient being on the planet. Agree with me, disagree with me, but please engage with me in these important conversations; that is what makes our democracy flourish.

And then there are those things which just make us nutty.  Asiago Bagels are a prime example.  Along with Blueberry Bagels, they fly in the face of what makes a bagel a bagel.  It's boiled dough with some stuff stuck on the outside..... as long as that stuff is a poppy or sesame seed or an onion.  Beyond that, they are some kind of gluten, but they are not bagels.  This is Outrage 2.0

And so, today, as TBG began to riff on Hat Discrimination, I took notes.  It was classic Outrage 2.0. laughed through every minute of it.  The following is his rant, with some of my own embellishments. (If you are sent to Outrage 1.0 after reading any of what follows, you are taking it, and yourself, much too seriously today.)
A stylish woman in a stylish chapeau was sitting two tables over at Wildflower.  Behind her was a stylish older cowboy in a stylish cowboy hat.  Those two sparked TBG's tirade on Hat Discrimination, starting from the perspective of the hat, itself.

Why did it have so many rules about inside and outside?  What did it do to deserve such persecution... and to whom did it do it.... and why did that person get to make all the rules?  There are no similar rules about any other article of clothing; why pick on the hat?

Why is it permissible for a woman to keep her hat on her head while dining, when Ms Manners frowns upon men who do the same?  Isn't that sexism run amok?

And then, there's religion.

Men must take their hats off in church, but women are required to keep theirs on.  That makes no sense at all.  Women spend time creating hairdos that can be admired from all sides.  Why choose to view a boring,  bald pate when you could admire a fashionable fedora? It's a simple matter of what is more interesting. The rules are just wrong.

Unless it's an all or nothing experience.

Observant Jewish men wear a head covering all the time; that, at least, is consistent.  The rules for women and other men depend on which piece of Judaism you ask.  Most, at some point, want to see a nod in the direction of a yarmulke for both sexes.

What is it with religions and covering the head?  Keeping the brains in?  Protecting the self from the wrath of God, sent from on-high straight down onto an unprotected noggin?

The man was on a roll.

Young boys can't wear their caps straight any more than they can cover their butts; sideways caps are as disrespectful as sagging jeans.  And when did it become appropriate to cover your head but expose your butt as you enter a restaurant?

After a brief detour into the meta - These are some really deep, anthropologically significant insights, y'know - we were brought up short when his mind went to Helmet-less Motorcyclists.

Some things belong in Outrage 1.0 ...  and lunch was being served.

"I am TBG and I approve the content of this post."
Have a wonderful weekend.  I'll be back on Sunday with some Valentines Love.


  1. I have often said the same about bagels AND hats deserve their treatment here!

  2. Don't get me started on hats! FGS, why can kids not wear hats at school? No hats at all in my kid's elementary school. My daughter LOVES hats and I've knitted several for her. She even wears them around the house as a beanie. But for school, no hats (said in the no soup for you tone). I just don't understand it.

    It actually irks me 'cause hats can be very stylish and they can keep your head warm. And I agree with TBG, why is there a double standard out in public? Let people wear whatever the heck they want to. It's not hurting anyone for a person to wear a hat.

    Love Outrage 1.0, but Outrage 2.0 is actually more fun. :)

    Have a great weekend.

    Megan xxx

    1. Is it an anti-gang thing or just another stupid rule? I totally agree: Outrage 2.0 is much more fun!!

  3. Well, I've always wondered why, when formal dress is required, men put on more clothing, and women put on less. And don't get me started on who gets to wear comfortable shoes.

    1. TBG wonders "When's the last time you had to tighten your necktie around a starched collar on a 95 degree business day?"

      He then wondered if his reply was too snarky. He wants to be certain not to hurt anyone's feelings, but I reassured him that, in Outrage 2.0, hurt feelings are not allowed <3

      He thought a bit, then added: But, she's right. I did get to wear great dress shoes :-)
      a/b and TBG

    2. When I watch Tucson local news, I always wonder who is suffering more under the lights. The men are wearing long sleeved shirts, ties and jackets. The women are generally sleeve-less. What's the ambient temperature in the broadcast studio? There's just such a gap in skin coverage between the sexes.

    3. Having been "under the lights" I can tell you that it feels just like a regular room; somehow, I never sweated, no matter what I was wearing.

      The skin coverage gap is especially pronounced on ESPN these days - skirts are getting shorter and legs are exposed as the men don vests and pocket squares .

      It's a mystery, for sure.


Talk back to me! Word Verification is gone!