DearLewis

Dear Lewis,

The news has been reporting lately on high school teams pulling their girls teams from state championships when they learn that a team they will be playing against has one or more transgender players. Of course, the immediate reaction from vocal activists is that those coaches who pull their girls teams from competition are, in their opinion, phobic.

But are they really? Some might be but surely not all of them are.

Gender is the social and psychological sense one carries of being male, female or any of the multitude of gender identities said to exist outside of the conventional definitions.

S*x is determined by X and Y chromosomes and those chromosomes determine skeletal structure and musculature.

Gender is fluid. X and Y chromosomes are not.

Just as you cannot change the color of your eyes, you cannot change the chromosomal set-up of your skeleton or how muscles are connected to your skeleton.

What this means is that when a biological male identifies as female and is allowed to join a sports team, that person is at an unfair advantage over biological females on their own sports team and on those sports teams against which they compete. It isn't intentional that such a person is at an advantage. It's just the way nature is.

So while someone may socially identify as a gender that is different from their biological birth s*x, that social identity doesn't take away any advantages birth may have bestowed upon that person by virtue of a social construct. It's no different than if a blue-eyes person feels he/she/they should have been born with brown eyes and for that reason wear contact lenses that make it appear he/she/they have brown eyes instead of blue eyes. At the end of the day, the chromosomes say that person has blue eyes no matter how they present when wearing contact lenses.

Just because someone wants to do something they are not qualified to do does not mean wishing changes the rules of the universe.

Like it or not, there are s*x-specific hip kinematics and s*x-specific stances at play thanks to one's skeletal structure. Biological females have more hip adduction that biological males, which correlates with increased transverse rotation of the pelvis and upper body. Biological males have more efficient arm and upper body swing than biological females.

Science has proven that a biological male's leg is about 80 percent muscle, compared with about 60 percent muscle in a biological female's leg. That's a pretty big difference.

A study published in the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology in 2021 stated:

"[QUOTE] [biological females] had lower maximal strength values when compared to [biological males] at bench press (−59.2%), squat (−57.2%), deadlift (−56.3%), and mid-shin pull (MSP, −53.2%). In addition, lower levels of power were detected in [biological females] in both the upper (−61.2%) and the lower body (−44.2%) [END QUOTE]."

Those are very big differences!

Perhaps it isn't phobia that results in girls sports team coaches pulling their teams from competition when one or more trans players set to compete against them is on the other team. Perhaps the coaches are actually looking out for the physical well-being of their team members.

Biological females have been fighting for equality for generations. During the 60s and 70s, feminists believed they were on the verge of breaking through the glass ceiling and creating a level playing field where their contributions would be considered and valued as much as those contributions by biological males.

Is it possible that competing in a new unfair playing field is leading to more mental health issues for young biological females who see their chances of breaking through the glass ceiling as their mothers and grandmothers did are more and more out of reach as biological males once again force them out of the running?

These are all valid considerations that lead to valid questions that ought to lead to valid discussions with no pit stop at the typical activist "phobia" card that is almost always played these days.

Maybe the solution is to create four kinds of teams: Biological male teams, biological female teams, teams with biological and trans males, teams with biological and trans females. That would certainly address the issue of gender identity and acknowledge the realities of biological factors when it comes to sports.

Signed
A Friend Who Cares

Dear Lewis,

I don't know if it's the virus that affected how people think or if the virus just gave people a reason to be exactly the way they are instead of masking the less desirable aspects of who they are, but since 2020, people have been horrible towards each other.

I'm not saying any generation, be they Boomers to GenZers or any generation in between, is worse than all the others. There are a lot of bad apples in every single generation alive so this isn't about picking on this generation or that generation and beating them with the ugly stick. It's not about drawing a political line in the sand and saying that party or this party is at fault and beating them with the ugly stick. Heaven knows there's enough ugly for everyone.

Language has become more polarized, and people seem to believe that for their experiences in life to be considered valid, they have to express them in the most extreme of terms.

Disagreeing with someone isn't the same thing as traumatizing someone. Unless you are suffering from lasting shock as a result of an emotionally disturbing experience or physical injury, that feeling you're experiencing is the fall-out from not agreeing with the other person. If you're traumatized from a disagreement, perhaps it's time to speak with a mental health professional about fragility.

If words can trigger someone, perhaps it's time for them to speak with a mental health professional about fragility. Just because someone has a strong, uncomfortable emotional reaction to something others have said doesn't mean those others need to be muzzled. It's about exploring why you are experiencing such a strong, uncomfortable emotional reaction, not about running off to an artificial safe space that allows you to avoid dealing with the issue(s) causing you so much trouble.

Just because someone you dislike -- perhaps even hate -- has solid self-esteem does not immediately make that person a narcissist because you dislike -- perhaps even hate -- them and what they believe in.

According to psychologists, narcissists are fixated on their appearance, have unreasonable expectations, show a disregard for other people, live in a fantasy world, attach codicils to everything they do for others, require constant praise, and place blame on others without shouldering any blame themselves.

According to psychologists, someone with good self-esteem takes care with their appearance, has high expectations (of themselves and others), care about others but not to the point of having that kindness abused, have dreams some say are unattainable goals, believes in reciprocal interactions, accepts and gives praise, and places blame squarely on the shoulders of those who are to blame for problems including blaming themselves.

But many times, someone will accuse another of being a narcissist by only looking at a segment of the definition while ignoring the entirety of the definition of someone with good self-esteem.

There is a pretentiously morality that comes from this kind of misperception of the world and those living in it. It leads to virtue signaling that relies on the most extreme hyperbolic language in order to be worthy of consideration.

I know the definition of a toxic person is one whose behavior adds negative and upset to other people's lives but that's not an accurate definition. For those who are insecure and doubt their own strengths, anyone who has good self-esteem feels like a threat, and threats, as we know, are negative. The problem comes about when the definition of a threat is misappropriated and misapplied to the person who makes an insecure person feel uncomfortable by virtue of being their authentic self.

When your supervisor or boss directs you to do something at work, your supervisor or boss is not being a controlling jerk.

That person you insist is a judgmental, jealous jerk may not be the judgmental, jealous jerk you say he/she/they is/are. If that person determines you cannot be trusted to carry out a job to which you have been assigned, that's making a judgement. That doesn't make the person judgmental in a negative way. It certainly doesn't prove the person making that judgement is jealous either.

A person with whom you do not agree is not necessarily a difficult person, and a difficult person is not necessarily a toxic person, and dealing with someone with whom you disagree or who is difficult is not a traumatizing situation unless you allow it to become a traumatizing situation.

So you see, since the virus reared its ugly head back in January 2020, everything you've been told about the need for cancel culture and stringing people up by their ears or hoisting him/her/them on his/her/their own petard is, for the most part, unnecessarily destructive to your life specifically, and society in general.

Not every negative is a bad thing either. When you get sick (a negative), you should take to your bed and get better (a positive). Getting sick allows you to consider how you got sick, and how to avoid getting sick like that again in the future.

I know all this may be hard for you and others to read, but it's true. It's time to stop catastrophizing every little thing in life, and time to get on with moving forward as best you can.

Maybe next time I'll write about whether a conformist can also be an individual. We shall see.

Signed
A Friend Who Cares

Dear Lewis,

Does anyone remember Eddie Murphy's 2002 box office bomb "The Adventures of Pluto Nash? It had a $100 MILLION USD budget and brought a total worldwide gross of only $7 MILLION USD. I'm guessing because it was a scifi movie that outerspace aliens or those who discriminate against outerspace aliens are to blame.

How about "Stealth" with Josh Lucas, Jessica Biel, and Jamie Foxx that was released in 2005? Columbia Pictures ponied up $135 MILLION USD to make that movie and at the end of the day and in Hollywood terms, it was a spectacular box office flop. Owch! I suppose the audience to blame for this are all the people who preferred "Topgun" starring Tom Cruise.

Remember that western from 1980 that bankrupted an entire studio? United Artists invested $44 MILLION USD into the filming of "Heaven's Gate" starring Kris Kristofferson, Christopher Walken, and Jeff Bridges and when all the pennies were counted up, it only brought in $3.5 MILLION USD and that was enough to sink United Artists. If anyone should be blamed, it should be all those city folk who hate cowboys and westerns, right?

Why is this entry about movies that flopped? It has everything to do with Billy Eichner's movie, "Bros" that flopped on opening weekend and after directly telling a specific segment of society to NOT go see his movie, he is blaming that exact same specific segment of society for the movie's abysmal showing on its opening weekend at theaters.

SOURCE 1:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/billy-eichner-ripped-twitter-fuming-straight-people-not-coming-see-bros

SOURCE 2:
https://torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/bros-star-billy-eichner-blames-box-office-flop-on-straight-people

SOURCE 3:
https://screenrant.com/bros-movie-box-office-billy-eichner-response/

So why did the movie tank on opening weekend? Here's what VARIETY magazine had to say about the issues with the movie.

LINK:
https://variety.com/2022/film/box-office/bros-box-office-bomb-why-billy-eichner-comedy-flopped-1235391341/

And here's what FORBES magazine had to say about the issues with the movie.

LINK:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/10/04/movies-bros-six-reasons-billy-eichner-same-s*x-comedy-was-box-office-disaster/

So it appears that most of the failure of the movie had to do with bad timing from October being a poor month to release a romcom to the competition of streaming options such as "Hocus Pocus 2" on Disney+ and other hotly anticipated streaming releases, and it had a noticeable lack of star power. Those facts -- and a few others -- have nothing to do with the specific segment of society that Billy Eichner is blaming for his movie's lackluster showing at the box office.

But rather than blame a specific segment of society he specifically targeted for his "don't go to this movie" social media posts, maybe Billy Eichner should wait to see if the movie has legs because what really matters is whether the movie has the ability to become a classic whether it's a traditional classic or a cult classic.

After all, isn't longevity preferable to the quick opening weekend hit?

He also seems to have overlooked the fact that Hurricane Ian was menacing the east coast all weekend, leaving most Floridians without power and gas and in some cases, housing. I don't believe hurricanes have a s*xual preference so Hurricane Ian was just being what it was -- a hurricane. And it was solid Category 4 -- nearly a Category 5 -- hurricane as it hit landfall. I'm pretty sure that natural disaster that affected so many states from Florida all the way up to New Jersey had something to do with people NOT taking in a movie at their local theaters.

SOURCE 1:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/09/30/hurricane-ian-historical-ranking-florida/

“Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar,” Sigmund Freud allegedly once said, and this appears to be the case with the Billy Eichner movie that did so badly at the box office on opening weekend. It was a bad weekend for his movie and no one is to blame.

However, if Billy Eichner keeps on blaming a specific segment of society, he could find himself alienating movie goers from that segment of society and from other segments of society from seeing his movie at a later date.

Yes, I know it's hard for the star who also co-write the script, to accept that not everyone rushed out to see his movie this past weekend, but he needs to practice some patience, some graciousness, and some appreciation towards those who either saw the movie or who planned on seeing the movie.

Alienating people by ranting on social media that the specific segment of society he directed NOT to see his movie were responsible for the movie failing to rake in the money at the box office on the weekend is going to backfire on Billy Eichner if he isn't careful. He needs to consider the fact that in the case of his movie, perhaps Sigmund Freud's cigar comment is spot on.

Signed,
A Friend Who Cares

6 Reasons Billy Eichner’s ‘Bros’ Was A Box Office Disaster No, it’s not that straight people failed to show up to 'Bros' this weekend, but rather that everyone failed to show up. Here's why.

Dear Lewis,

According to Boston-based restaurant point-of-sale platform TOAST, full-service restaurants on average see a 19.9 percent tip left by customers and in quick-service restaurants the average tip is 17.0 percent.

When servers complain about "tipping fatigue" and not being tipped well by customers, the question begs to be asked why are 17 percent and almost 20 percent tips not enough when in the past tips were between 10 percent and 15 percent?

The argument is that the server provided the customer with a service and based on that simple fact, the server deserves to be tipped and well at that. So let's look at the other side of the coin.

The argument can just as easily be made that when someone enters a grocery store or a retail store, by virtue of the fact that they may choose to be checked out instead of using the self-check-outs, the person running the till should be tipped anywhere from 15 percent and up (depending on how efficiently the cashier cashes the customer out) based on the simple fact that the cashier provided a service for the customer.

The argument can also just as easily be made that when you climb on board a bus or a trolley, based on the simple fact that the driver got you to your intended destination, the driver provided a service that warrants a tip -- at least 15 percent and more if the driver got you to the right destination within a reasonable period of time.

But tipping cashiers at grocery or retail stores isn't allowed by employers, and trolley drivers and bus drivers employed by the municipal government aren't allowed to accept tips (although I haven't heard of any drivers claiming someone attempted to tip them for doing their job).

Over the past two and a half years, servers have demanded customers leave better tips claiming that for all they do, they deserve at least 25 percent or more. The pandemic didn't cause this to happen; the pandemic provided a perfect excuse for this to happen.

Your doctor and the doctor's staff provide a valuable service to their patients. Should medical bills now include tipping the doctor and the doctor's staff?

What if you have to go to the hospital by ambulance? Do you pull out your wallet as the ambulance attendants wheel you into the emergency room? How do you keep track of all the nurses that do everything they do until the ER doctor can assess your situation? After all, those people are also providing a valuable service!

Your dentist and the dentist's staff provide a valuable service to their patients. Should dental bills now include tipping the dentist and the dentist's staff?

How about the mail delivery person? Every time the mail is delivered to your mailbox, should the mail delivery person expect to find a tip in the mailbox waiting to be picked up? If you live on a rural postal delivery route, should the delivery person expect better tips because you don't live in the city? If you live in the city, should the delivery person expect better tips because he/she/they have to do so much walking along their route as he/she/they deliver mail to your city address?

What if your address is a business address and not a residential address? Should the tip be increased because everyone knows that on a daily basis business addresses receive more mail than residential addresses?

When I eat at a restaurant, I don't mind tipping. I go there expecting to leave a reasonable tip, and if the service is lacking, I know I'll take the time to speak with the shift manager and quietly point out what wasn't done well alongside something that was done well because balance is important. Sometimes what went wrong is beyond the server's control and the shift manager needs to know the person responsible needs to be made aware of the problems caused because of that.

What I don't like is being told or pressured into leaving a much bigger tip than is reasonable. Don't push for me to leave a whopping 25 percent tip before anything has made its way to the table. Don't keep reminding me how your kids depend on how much you make in tips.

But the biggest thing is this: Don't try to guilt or shame me into leaving the size tip you want on the basis that you are a server working for a measly $2.13 per hour plus tips.

According to websites Indeed and Glass Door and confirmed by servers posting to Reddit and other similar platforms, full-time servers at Texas Roadhouse who earn the typical $2.13 per hour actually make $20 and more per hour when tips (tracked through an app servers use) are included. A similar situation is reported for servers at TFI Fridays, Chili's, Outback, and other similar family restaurants (in other words, not hoity toity fine dining establishments).

That makes for $160 and up for an 8-hour day or $800 and up per week. The monthly income is about $3,300 and up which makes for a yearly income of $40,000 and up.

According to the WIC income eligibility guidelines from 1 July 2021 through to 30 June 2022, a household of three is eligible for assistance at that level of income but that doesn't mean the household of three is living at the poverty level.

WIC income eligibility criteria is set at 185 percent of the federal poverty level, and at that point, the state provides Medicaid and enrolls the household in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Now most households have more than one wage earner however this entry has focused on whether a single parent of two children can live above the poverty level when the single parent works at a restaurant. I know some will say that daycare costs will eat up a large part of the single parent's income.

Guess what? There are tax free childcare programs available in each state and province for children under 12 (under 17 if the child has a diagnosed disability that requires childcare beyond that point). A single parent doesn't even have to work full-time to qualify, but if that single parent does work full-time, they aren't excluded from such programs because the single parent is working a 40-hour work week.

If a server feels they need more money than he/she/they are earning as a server at a sit-down restaurant, instead of foisting "tipping fatigue" on customers who are tipping well already, maybe it's time for the server to secure a better paying job. After all, the customer didn't force the server to take the job at the restaurant in the first place. That's on the server.

And for those who point out that if all servers went out and found better paying jobs there would be no servers to work restaurants, I simply have this to say: There will always be people willing to work for $20 plus per hour without complaining they aren't being tipped well enough.

So yes, tip your server when you eat at a restaurant, but don't feel you need to leave more than a reasonable amount because the server is being paid $2.13 per hour plus tips. Those tips add up fast. And if the server is not good at their job, the law states the employer has to make the difference up between the $2.13 per hour and the minimum wage in that state or province.

Signed,

A Friend Who Cares

[QUOTE] A woman’s TikTok showing a small, apparently white child attempting to tell a Black woman where to sit at a public park has garnered 1.1 million views on the platform, where commenters are criticizing the child’s behavior and lack of intervention from her mother.

In the video posted by , a young girl can be heard attempting to get her to sit somewhere else, claiming that the picnic table at a public park was hers. The child insists that the woman can’t sit at the table, that she was sitting there first.

“I don’t have to sit nowhere else, I’ll sit right here thank you,” the adult woman tells the child insisting that she move.

“There’s still more tables over there, you can only sit over there,” the child responds." [END QUOTE]

ARTICLE LINK: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/baby-karen-tiktok/

Dear Lewis,

This story may not be what the website reporting it is all about but because sensationalism and catastrophizing sell well in the media, the default these days is for news stories to be all the sensationalizing and catastrophizing that will guarantee clicks, views, and subscriptions. But that doesn't mean the news story is actually a full accounting of what happened, and when it only presents one side of the story, it's important to question why that might be.

You see, growing up, all children are told about Stranger Danger. Don't talk to strangers. If a stranger says hello, it's fine to say hello in return as long as the adult with whom they are with is nearby (in this case, the upset woman claimed the mom was sitting at a nearby table with her younger child). Children are told to stay more than the adult's arm length away if they are approached by an adult.

We also are taught to exercise self-regulation growing up. Whether it's because the child is growing angry or is overwhelmed by a situation, we encourage children to learn to self-regulate and one of those self-regulating options is to remove themselves from the situation so they can calm back down.

It's one of the nine options kids at school learn from Kelso the Frog. Another option is to tell the person causing aggravation to leave you alone (assertive behavior as opposed to aggressive behavior) or to walk away because it takes two to have a conflict.

Surprisingly enough (or perhaps not), the child may have been making the most of the "wait and cool off" option where kids are taught to take a few minutes to a few hours away from the situation before trying to resolve the situation causing distress.

But this news story would have readers believe that Kelso the Frog's Rules couldn't possibly be the reason the child reacted as she did, and that she must be a racist and a Karen in the making instead because a self-regulating child isn't nearly as interesting to most people on the Internet as a racist Karen-in-the-making.

I don't doubt the child told the woman there were other EMPTY tables in this same location. I question if she followed it up directing the adult with a comment that indicated the adult was only allowed to sit at those table.

And yes, the child *was* sitting at that table first. We know that to be a fact because the woman -- a stranger to the child -- chose to walk up to that particular table to sit down. She didn't choose any of the other table where no one else was seated. She chose to sit at a table where a small child was seated and (if you read the article) items were left with her (perhaps with the directive from the adult with her to stay put and watch over those items until the adult returned).

You see, although there was an adult woman seated at another table with a child who was younger than the child seated alone at the table she was at, there was no proof that the child on her own was with the adult at the other table.

So may this isn't a case of a little white child flexing racist behavior. Maybe this is a case of an adult trying to bully a child.

The thing to keep in mind is that there is always more than just one side to any story, and that is certainly the case here.

Don't assume you know what's going on just because you're seeing things from your perspective. Consider the possibility that something beyond your own world view is happening.

Maybe even the story you tell others about your situation isn't as accurate as you think it is. After all, this story shows there might be a completely different reason for the girl reacting the way she did towards the adult female.

Signed,

A Friend Who Cares

'Baby Karen' tries to tell Black woman where to sit at the park in viral TikTok A woman's TikTok showing a small child attempting to tell a woman where to sit at a public park has garnered 1.1 million views.

Dear Lewis,

Welcome to the New Year, and welcome to another flurry of social media letters with insights that will help you make it through to 2023.

I thought you might be interested in learning about the Land of Mediocrity -- a land that is overpopulated by all kinds of people from the unbelievably lazy to those paralyzed with fear and many different kinds of people between the two.

People who live in the Land of Mediocrity are, for the most part, unhappy with their fate in life. Their income (if they are employed) is middling, and the hours they work (if they are employed) is more than they feel is warranted for the mediocre income they are earning. They live in places that don't meet the standards to which they feel they are entitled while at the same time blaming others for their middling existence.

They oftentimes say their friends are the best but when the chips are down, those friends show their colors in that they share the same values and viewpoints and for that reason don't see much of a reason to do much more than what is "enough" to still be considered a friend.

Living in the Land of Mediocrity means surrendering to the concept that "good enough is enough" instead of striving for more.

For example, if a person choosing to live in the Land of Mediocrity has a disability of some sort -- a learning disability, a socialization disability, some other disability -- and they decide their disability absolves or excuses them from securing employment as an adult, they may choose not to complete high school. After all, in the Land of Mediocrity, there's no sense in having an education if you probably won't be employed and you'll probably be supported through government programs.

But even without a disability, those who live in the Land of Mediocrity feel those who have worked hard to relocate to the Island of Excellence are responsible for the sad fate of those who choose to live their entire lives in the Land of Mediocrity. They feel those who live on the Island of Excellence ought not enjoy the fruits of their hard labor, their determination to better themselves and their situation, and their dedication to maintaining the high standards they set for themselves.

What keeps so many people in the Land of Mediocrity is the fear of success more than the fear of failure. When a person fails, they can stop right there and say they tried and that was good enough. But when someone succeeds, they have a choice to make: Do they stop right there and rise no further, or do they take another step forward and upward towards a subsequent success?

People in the Land of Mediocrity are happy saying they tried and failed, and for that reason, the effort was good enough without warranting another attempt.

People on the Island of Excellence push themselves to be the best version of themselves possible.

The Island of Excellence is small while the Land of Mediocrity is vast, and there's a reason for that. It's because few people are willing to endure and overcome challenges to make it to the Island of Excellence. Most people are happy enough to hang out with the rest of their friends in the Land of Mediocrity because there are so many more people there in case they have a falling out with their current friends.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be a citizen of the Land of Mediocrity. Just remember that being a citizen of the Land of Mediocrity doesn't give you the right to complain about the rewards reaped by the citizens of the Island of Excellent.

At the end of the day, only you can decide if the life you are living is "good enough" or "the best."

Signed,

A Friend Who Cares