They Make Us Less Human

 Recently, Melissa Harris-Perry recalled cracking open a watermelon and, finding it un-ripe, left it for her chicken to nibble. She watched them from her porch, her hair wrapped in a scarf.  “I was probably somebody’s stereotype of a Black woman,” she quipped.

Had she sported the kind of hairdo Jennifer Aniston wore during her first few years on “Friends” or a designer suit, someone would have accused her of trying to be White.

Likewise, I have been accused of “overdoing “ it when I simply dressed as a woman my age might and condemned for fitting the same people’s stereotype of a trans woman even, if I say so myself, I have done no such thing since the first couple of years of my gender affirmation process.

So, I had a sense of deja vu when I read about an Australian study in which 30 percent of respondents said they saw cyclists as “less human” when they wore helmets, reflective vests or other safety gear

Photo by Robert Peri

Why does this matter? If the history of racism, sexism, homo- or trans-phobia showsl us anything, people are more likely to behave more aggressively toward those they regard as not-quite-human, or less human than themselves. 

In other words, it’s easier to rationalize violence against someone when the victim can be reduced to a stereotype, or de-humanized in some other way.

The findings of the Australian study, however, show (even if it wasn’t the intent of the researchers) that cyclists are in a Catch-22 situation.  If we wear safety gear, we’re less human and violence or simply carelessness against us is justifiable or, at least, excusable. But if we aren’t wearing helmets and day-glo vests (or even if we are), we are blamed even if the driver downed a whole bottle of vodka and drove at double the speed limit.

Obedience Training

 Call me a curmudgeon or a misanthrope. But I think that if dogs could read, they’d be more likely to follow this sign’s directive 

than their human walking them would.

What Did Your First Bike Cost?

 Someone, I forget who, told me, “The really rich never pay for anything.”

I guess Harry and Meghan, even though they stepped away from some of the Royal life’s trappings (which really trapped some!), qualify. Their son just got a new bike for his birthday and neither his mum nor his dad had to shell out shillings, dole out dollars or proffer their platinum (or whatever level of credit card accrues to Royals).

You see, a shop in their current hometown—Montecito, California—gave the bike, gratis.  This act of generosity came to light when the shop publicized the “thank you” note the couple (or one of their assistants) sent.

Such a move, of course,’ garners publicity. Most of it was positive, but some believe that the shop should have donated the bike to a kid needier than lil’ Archie.

Call me wishy-washy,‘but I can sympathize with both sides.  Businesses gift celebrities everything from bagels to ‘Benzes and gardenias to gala gowns. The publicity usually pays off and, I imagine, enables some creators and entrepreneurs to give their wares to those less fortunate. Still, if someone has to choose between giving to the rich or the poor, I would rather that the gift goes to someone who might not have it otherwise.

Then again, I can understand why—alert from being in their hometown—why the shop would give a bike to a royal tyke: It’s called Mad Dogs & Englishmen.