blablabla
I have been bogged down by unfinished blog entries. So to unload and start off on a fresh slate, I offer you some thought-provoking links and excerpts, and unfinished thoughts that have inspired me enough to write a few words, but perhaps not enough to write a full entry. This is long (four full screen lengths), so please browse….
Are YOU an African country ravaged by Aids and parched by drought? Fear not! Simply call Madonna! This fabulously wealthy white women from the West will solve all of your problems with a few fleeting visits, some looks of pained concern for the paparazzi, and a couple of million quid in donations…
There is something creepily colonialist in Madonna’s attitude to Africa. First we had the White Man’s Burden -– now we have the White Madonna’s Burden. More and more celebrities are treating Africa as a wide-eyed child that needs a Hollywood hug -– or as a wicked devil that needs a Hollywood hammering.
Sometimes, I wish people would stop whining about so-called “sexual oppression” in the United States. We have it pretty good in this country. Why do we keep complaining? Because apparently part of the answer to women’s sexual oppression, is to watch more porn:
Women bear the brunt of sexual oppression. While women have gained upward mobility in economic, political, and social realms, sexual liberation is the necessary key to open the door to full emancipation. Many women are not even aware of this insidious form of oppression. It is essential that women embrace their sexual identities. Women are entitled to enjoy sex and engage in any sexually activity that brings them pleasure without fear of punishment. This includes anything from thinking about sex to consuming pornography to engaging in sex acts that society still deems aberrant. If we find pornography, at large, to be degrading to women, then women must take charge of producing pornographic images that no longer cater to male desires through degrading depictions of women. Women, as consumers, have the power to transform the porn industry by creating a demand for porn that speaks to women’s interests.
I hate the language of rights. It seems to imply that we have no responsibilities, only entitlements. It leads us to be complainers and whiners of our own situation, rather than people who are working to improve those of others. (A notable reflection on this can be found in White Courtesy Telephone.)
Who said “women are entitled to enjoy sex and engage in any sexual activity that brings them pleasure without fear of punishment?” Unless we get our tubes tied, we’re always going to have to worry about pregnancy. Our bodies are not entirely our own.
Yale student, Aliza Shvarts, created a scandal this year by creating artwork by collecting the blood from supposedly nine herbally-induced abortions—which in effect, is insulting to pro-choice and pro-life supporters alike for the manner in which she took so lightly human life. And this is the rhetoric she spews:
Among her "conceptual goals," she wrote in the Yale Daily News, was "to assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form. It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." Shvarts wanted to show that "it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are 'meant' to birth a child."
Luckily, atleast some do not buy into the jargon:
Yale, of all colleges, never should have been blind-sided by such a stunt. One of the most astute critics of the humanities is on its faculty. Last year, Anthony T. Kronman, the former dean of Yale's law school, published "Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life." This superb book traces the historical rise and fall of the humanities, which, Kronman writes, "are not merely in a crisis. They are in danger of becoming a laughingstock, both within the academy and outside it."
We All Own Stolen Goods — and How Defending Property Rights Can Help the World’s Most Oppresed People by Leif Wenar
Confessions of a Sweatshop Inspector by T. A. Frank
But of course, we don’t really have to worry about this because we’re adults in America. We only need to care about ourselves. Today, the signifiers of adulthood, the emergence from the so-called university “campus bubbles”, are framed wall art, dry-clean only clothing, studio apartments, even more casual sex, Coach bags and happy hour martinis. Welcome Sex and the City, our beloved four role models of young professional life. Even in later years, the true keynote of adulthood is not so much marriage, as the purchase of dream suburban home, or if you’re really high up on the achievement ladder, the urban luxury flat.
Barber argues that the new ethic of capitalism is one of ‘infantilisation’: money today is to be made in maintaining adults as needy children, who stuff down dumbed-down films, saccharine food and video games. While in the early stages of capitalism it benefited the capitalist system for everybody to save their pennies, now it benefits the system for us to splurge every penny and borrow more. While in the time of Franklin people were encouraged to restrain themselves and reinvest, now, says Barber, we are encouraged to act on every immediate whim, to be the grasping child in a sweet shop unable to say no...
If consumerism is emphasized more in our culture than production, play more than work, this is not only because consumption is what Western capitalism needs now – it is also because the production side of life is so lacking in ideological justification.
It is not so much that we have an ethic of consumption, but that – by default – it remains as one of the few meaningful experiences in our lives. There is a tangibility and satisfaction to buying – to picking out a new shirt or a new album and taking it home – that means that shopping remains for individuals a confirmation of their power to make things happen in the world.
The power of consumption has been usefully theorised by the Marxist sociologist Georg Simmel. In The Philosophy of Money, he looks at how buying an object is an act of individual subjectivity, the person stamping himself on a thing and claiming his right to its exclusive enjoyment. Shopping remains a way in which our choices have a tangible effect, in which we can make something in our lives new and different.
I am quite saddened if shopping ends up being one of the few meaningful experiences that I can have in my life, and that it's one of the few ways that I can make an impact in the world and express myself. Is it not bad enough that I am what I do, that now I also have to be what I buy?
Today's American children, by contrast, get an average of 70 new toys a year, yet child development experts agree that the best toys are simple playthings such as blocks, balls and figurines that a child can play with over and over, in new ways. When I was growing up, a sticker was something precious that a stationery store owner would carefully cut off a roll and sell for 25 cents. Today, a made-in-China jumbo book of 600 stickers can be bought at CVS for $6.99. Something has been lost in this ostensibly positive development...
Far from inducing feelings of inadequacy, saying no to the parenting consumer culture should make parents feel all the wiser...
As for my husband and me, we hardly have unlimited resources, but we're still planning to go forth and multiply in the big city. The way we figure it, one day our children will be grateful for what we didn't give them -- and what we did for them instead.