Tonight, the first primary in the nation is taking place in New Hampshire. The tension is tense, the excitement exciting, and the political bovine excrement thick, deep and particularly odiferous. So let’s talk about something much more interesting: female feet.
I rather like female feet, but certainly not in a fetishistic manner. All feet can be of Fred Flintstonian character, but female feet in particular can be quite graceful, and serve to remind hulking males of the delicacy and delight of women. So too, for female hands. Living in Texas, one gets to see a great many lovely, feminine feet, and upon occasion, toe rings, a subject upon which I am practically agnostic.
Generally, it’s unwise to call attention to any body part unless said body part is worthy of the attention, and at the very least, not horrifying to the casual eye. Where toe rings are concerned, one probably needs relatively long and slender toes to pull them off, long and slender toes attached to graceful, feminine feet. I tend to be a minimalist where jewelry is concerned, and have never so much as worn a wedding ring, so perhaps I’m not an authority on the adornment of the anatomy with precious metals and gemstones.
This, of course, brings us to the currently hot topic of cultural appropriation. You’ve read, I’m sure, gentle readers, about perpetually aggrieved college students protesting such things as people wearing various items of Mexican clothing, or even eating tacos? Oh yes. At Dartmouth, Stanford, and other so-called institutions of higher learning.
Odd, that. I know it’s been a year or two since I was a full time college student, but the only time I might have been able to devote to a protest about any significant issues might have been a few seconds for a passing word or two as I trotted past a protest in progress on the way to my next class. Oh, that’s right. There were no such protests. Everyone in college back in the 1400s had no time for such self-indulgent navel-gazing.
So what is cultural appropriation? The Stanford Daily defines it as: “actions that trivialize aspects of a culture by not respecting a custom’s symbolic significance or the history of a style of dress or other artifact.”
If that sounds so vague as to allow various “activists” to go berserk over virtually anything, intentional or not, for any reason, you’re starting to get the idea of the social justice movement, particularly on college campuses these days.
It’s such a shame. I’m in no danger of wearing sombreros, or other stereotypically Mexican peasant attire, but I’m rather fond of Mexican food and quite a number of the Mexicans that make it. But I certainly don’t want to be non-diverse, insensitive, culturally inappropriate, and a big poopy face to boot. To avoid cultural appropriation, I guess I’ll be going Italian–oh wait. That’s cultural appropriation too, isn’t it?
Sound silly enough? Check out this one from National Review:
According to a piece in the totally logical social-justice blog Everyday Feminism, it is racist and offensive to wear toe rings or bangle bracelets in almost any situation.
Yep. According to the article’s author, Aarti Olivia, wearing these kinds of jewelry amounts to an appropriation of South Asian culture.
Uh, toe rings?! Racist?! An appropriation of South Asian Culture?! Please, explain:
Olivia explains that in her culture, ‘it has been traditionally expected that married women wear bangles,’ and that although that tradition is no longer ‘imposed upon women,’ they do ‘wear them for religious or festive occasions.
Uh, “bangles?” Websters defines Bangles as: “a large stiff ring that is worn as jewelry around the arm, wrist or ankle,” or “an ornamental disk that hangs loosely (as on a bracelet).” So are bangles racist too, and if so, what about baubles, gew gaws, froo froo, and similar adornments? Who first came up with the idea of cloth, and if we wear clothing, are we being racist toward them?
In pop culture, you have probably seen the likes of Iggy Azalea and Selena Gomez wear them for music videos and performances,’ Olivia writes.
And that, she continues, is not okay.
In fact, according to Olivia, there is only one very specific situation in which a non-South Asian person such as a yucky whitey can wear this type of bracelet:
‘If you are in attendance of a Hindu friend’s matrimonial functions and the dress code is Indian ethnic — but [yes, there’s more!] be sure to check with your host first.
Right. The next time I attend a Hundu wedding, I’ll be sure to inquire.
Her rule for toe rings, which, she explains, are ‘also known as the Bichiya or Metti,’ are even more strict:
When is it acceptable to wear a Bichiya toe ring?
If you are married to a South Asian.
I’m not going to ask about nose and nipple rings. Or rings in other–parts… But like so much else, these twerps have ruined it for me. The next time I see a pair of lovely feminine feet festooned–don’t you just love that word?–with toe rings, all I’ll be able to see is the sad feet of south Asian persons, so long in bondage, so long oppressed, so long trod upon. “Nobude knowz, da trubl mah feet seen…” Do South Asians have that kind of accent?
Maybe I can get the Clintons to start a foundation or something. A few speeches, and…
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Your column today reminds me of a very recent Facebook “unfriending” done to me by a local middle school teacher. He told me apologetically that I had been making comments that many of his fellow teacher friends would find offensive. The comment which prompted his action (woe is me! lol) was when he announced a teacher union protest meeting which he encouraged everyone to attend. I had posted the following: “That includes all those people belonging to the Open Carry Movement of course.” Hah! He very definitely DID NOT MEAN his meeting was open to those people!!
I had “failed to understand” that such “open meetings – public welcome” does not include any law abiding adult who violates THE LIBERAL PREJUDICES. Those people who believe they can exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms openly cannot be allowed into liberal meetings no matter how “open” they are declared to be. And of course – all the teachers in Ann Arbor, Michigan are more than willing to deny the civil rights of citizens they disagree with. :-)
Why do these people (liberal Democrat-voters) always get themselves into such obvious logical contradictions? This group I mention is composed of college-degreed professionals who are teaching Ann Arbor youths how to live as adults. REALLY!
I should in fairness also point out that conservative/Republican voters are equally unbalanced when they object to regulation of any kind: as in the recent surge of “Constitutional Carry laws” which are based on the claim that government does not have the power to regulate constitutional rights. That claim reached its logical failure height when deregulation of businesses (which have NO constitutional rights) led directly to the collapse of the US economy. Intellectual failures of this kind are regularly promoted by the two competing ideologies. Which says quite a lot.
“totally logical social-justice blog”. That’s a contradiction.
Can I presume that all the tattooed hipsters and SJW’s will now be taking a cheese grater to their skin, so they won’t be misappropriating someone’s culture? Or the nose-piercers? (They do look attractive on South Asian women but I’ve seen few from other cultures who can pull it off – and it’s usually the {ahem} robust women who seem to go for them. Ugh!)
Or the piercers who stretch their lobes and other body parts?
Heavens, I hope that people don’t start immolating themselves as a result of their shame. They could be accused of misappropriating the cultural tradition of Buddhists.
Muslims need to stop appropriating airplanes and skyscrapers from the West. Airplanes and skyscrapers were invented by Wright Americans for the right kind of Americans. Muslims can get on their culturally-appropriate magic carpets and see how far they get.