Sorry for the late post, yesterday was for a Star Wars Marathon and chilli. Yeah you jealous.
Have you ever flipped through a magazine like Cosmopolitan? I'm not gonna lie, it's hilarious. Terrible, but hilarious. It's fairly common knowledge that they're designed to make the average early twenties through to early thirties feel insecure and shitty about themselves, but then again, it's not as if it's hard. Society does that anyway. These women's magazines though, they take it to the next level, concentrating as many insecurity-causing half facts and airbrushed models as possible into the ridiculous number of pages they have (a decent portion of them are ads for perfume and hair colour... women stink and are off-coloured apparently. Never thought so myself, but what do I know, I'm not a cosmetologist), all the while putting on this faux-playful, serious-but-not-quite air. It's just like Cyndi Lauper said: Girls just wanna have fun so they can cover up their crippling insecurities and present an air of confidence and please their man. Those are the lyrics, right?
I had the pleasure of flipping through a copy of Cosmopolitan from 2008 yesterday. Maybe it's a case of genders communicating in different ways, but I don't understand the appeal. Case in point: 4 pages dedicated to quizzes, each quiz with less than eight 3-part multiple choice questions, designed to tell you how confident you are with friends, in yourself, with new partners and in bed. Here's the kicker though, no matter what you scored, the result could basically be boiled down to the same thing: It's cool that you're yourself, even though it may be alienating people. It's a tactical strike that ensures every reader who's gullible enough to buy this crap feels at least a little bit crappy about themselves. Another section, delightfully entitled "Manscripts," is basically a transcript of Hamiash Blake and two friends chatting at a pub. Scintillating. Of course, the article header says something like "Ever wonder what guys talk about at the pub? We lift the lid on secret man-talk!" as if all men are a secret cabal of conspiracy theorists and perverts. That said, to get to the heart of the article, what Hamish Blake discovered over the course of (I think it was) three hours at the pub is that guys talk about sex, work and the minutiae of first world life. Wow, thanks Hamish. Of course, it was carefully edited to include just a few jabs at women in general, this time about bowel movements and labial grooming. If the economy ran on women feeling like shit about themselves, we'd all be living in solid gold houses.
I'm almost certain I could excel as a writer for women's magazines, following the simple formula: No-one knows everything and everyone has insecurities, so providing "facts" that play to insecurities is addictive and makes people feel like shit. It's a winning combination. Case in point, spot the fake article:
"Ten Things He's Thinking But Not Saying"
"Why Sex Is Ruining Your Relationship"
"Forget Fake Tan, The Sun Is The One"
"Seven Special Treats For Him This Valentines Day"
"Frisky Festive! Sample This Season's Yule-Tide Lingerie"
The sad part? There is no answer, they're all fake. Not to say they couldn't be written, it'd be easy as hell. First one? Make up some shit about how eyes linger on body parts that are getting flabby. Second? Sex can take away intimacy from relationship and drive him into the arms of another woman. Or drugs, who cares. Third? That's easy, even colouration and vitamin D. Fourth one, make up some silly names for old positions and be out in time for lunch. The fifth one would just be a fun afternoon on Photoshop. I'd feel a little bad about how much disdain I have for the editors, writers and readers of women's magazines if it wasn't completely and totally justified.
You'd think after all this, I'd be anti-women's magazines, but you couldn't be more wrong. There's a sucker born every minute and at least half of them are female, so why not cash in on how crappy they feel? It's not as if they're gonna feel better any time soon.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Yule Tide Thoughts on the Season.
Christmas is weird, when you ponder just how much sway it has over everyone in Australia. The religious, the secular, the rich and the poor... it weighs on everyone's mind in one way or another. The thing is, as such a young nation with such a melting pot of cultures, the Christmas we have in Australia is less a tradition and more this weird, annual fantasy we create some time near the end of the year. Consider some of the idiosyncrasies of the Australian Christmas.
We use the symbols of pine tress and snow as an indicator of the festive season during Australian summer. It's absolutely bonkers, it makes no sense. As a hold over from English (and to some extent, American) festive seasons, I understand why they're used, but it's more the juxtaposition of this one fantasy against this almost opposite reality. Snow is on the TV but we're lazing around in board shorts and thongs. Evergreen pines are everywhere but the lawn is brown. In my experience, Australian "festivity" is less about an ongoing sense of spirituality or peace and more about excitement for a day off or a day on the piss. In a way, it makes sense though; the ads and symbols all around us don't reinforce any feelings we're already having, they're just reminding us that a party is coming.
The idea of the Christmas roast is weird as well. In the UK, you're celebrating when it's cold, you're eating a hearty, filling hot roast while it's dark and cold outside. The roast meat makes sense. But over here? We're having Christmas lunch in the bright, sunny and hot afternoon. Cold prawns becoming traditional, that I understand. It makes sense. I'd understand stuff like cold seafood, fresh fruit, salads, cold drinks... but roasts and custard and egg nog and Christmas Pudding? It may be traditional but it's also completely inappropriate given the season, not the "season."
I won't get started on Christmas carols but seriously, they are so goddamn awful. Christmas music blows.
All that said, I'm a big fan of December 25th and the few days around it. I generally have a lot of fun. The Santas and snow and baubles and shitty music, I could do without, but friends, family, good food, good drink and shallow materialism are great, so any day that brings a lot of them is fine by me.
We use the symbols of pine tress and snow as an indicator of the festive season during Australian summer. It's absolutely bonkers, it makes no sense. As a hold over from English (and to some extent, American) festive seasons, I understand why they're used, but it's more the juxtaposition of this one fantasy against this almost opposite reality. Snow is on the TV but we're lazing around in board shorts and thongs. Evergreen pines are everywhere but the lawn is brown. In my experience, Australian "festivity" is less about an ongoing sense of spirituality or peace and more about excitement for a day off or a day on the piss. In a way, it makes sense though; the ads and symbols all around us don't reinforce any feelings we're already having, they're just reminding us that a party is coming.
The idea of the Christmas roast is weird as well. In the UK, you're celebrating when it's cold, you're eating a hearty, filling hot roast while it's dark and cold outside. The roast meat makes sense. But over here? We're having Christmas lunch in the bright, sunny and hot afternoon. Cold prawns becoming traditional, that I understand. It makes sense. I'd understand stuff like cold seafood, fresh fruit, salads, cold drinks... but roasts and custard and egg nog and Christmas Pudding? It may be traditional but it's also completely inappropriate given the season, not the "season."
I won't get started on Christmas carols but seriously, they are so goddamn awful. Christmas music blows.
All that said, I'm a big fan of December 25th and the few days around it. I generally have a lot of fun. The Santas and snow and baubles and shitty music, I could do without, but friends, family, good food, good drink and shallow materialism are great, so any day that brings a lot of them is fine by me.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
On Feminine Empowerment
OK, so first of all, apologies for missing last week and posting late this week. I have an excuse... let's go with "work."
Second, laying out my bona fides here: I'm not a feminist, by default. I'm a dude, I can't really be a proper feminist. I'm a feminist sympathiser though, and I find a lot of their theories make sense. I'm nowhere near as well read as I should be and I'm nowhere near the radical end of the spectrum, but I won't lie, I'm closer to that side than I am to the weird, faux-feminist lipstick thing. I just don't understand how modern "empowerment" is even remotely empowering. To clarify:
1) How is Sasha Grey (or any pornstar) a symbol of feminist empowerment? I understand that there was a brief period in the sixties when certain feminists were fans of Playboy magazine for presenting a new, liberated female sexuality, but even then, it's kinda flawed. Fast-forward to modern hardcore pornography and it's the same flawed logic a hundredfold. Yes, I agree that women should have the same freedom to be sexual and express their sexuality as men have and yes, I think that the whole "a man is a player, a woman is a slut" ideal is just plain stupid. You can't advocate equality on one hand then hold women to this arbitrary standard of sexual "purity" on the other. The door swings both ways; if men and women are to be truly equal, there's no reason why a woman can't have sex with as many (or as few) men or women (or otherwise, provided the parties consent) as they like. That said, modern pornography isn't about sexual freedom, it's a male domination fantasy. Seriously, just watch some porn, I guarantee it'll feature at least one scene where the woman gazes reverently at the man's penis like it's work of art, there'll be at least one scene where the man will say "you like that?" and the woman will make some response like she's in the absolute throes of orgasmic pleasure because, oh I don't know, she has two penises in her arse. The vast majority of pornography is made under the pretense that women are to be used for male satisfaction, and I have not yet found any (admittedly I haven't really been looking) where it's the reverse. Pornstars, particularly ones in the public eye like Sasha Grey or Bree Olsen, don't present a new, aggressive take on female sexuality as much as they propagate a penis worship fantasy.
2) I don't think any sexual act is inherently sexist but it's all context dependent. I've heard the argument presented that stuff like fellatio, man on woman anal sex and even penetrative vaginal sex are all sexist weapons that hamstring female sexual freedoms, but I don't buy this so much, again because the door swings both ways. Humans aren't robots, sex isn't a transaction. It can involve a number of partners of any gender, its definition isn't so clear cut. The point is, if anyone involved in the activity derives pleasure from a certain action and everyone else involved is cool with it, I don't see the harm. Comfort and consent, guys. Comfort and consent. The issue comes out of, once again, expectation that women should act a certain way and do certain things. A woman giving a man a blowjob isn't necessarily sexist, but a man expecting her to, getting annoyed when she doesn't and acting as if she's doing something wrong for not, that is sexist. I had an ex who was particularly uncomfortable with the whole idea of oral sex, both giving and receiving, so we just never did it. It's not that she was wrong, of course she wasn't. She was uncomfortable with the idea and to insist upon it would have made her even less comfortable, so it's not as if she could ever properly consent to it. Prostitution is a bit sticky here, because it blurs the lines of what consent is, but my incredibly simplistic view on the issue is: Trafficked women, drugs addicts, single parents living in poverty and the mentally handicapped do not have the proper tools to consider their situation, so I'd say to have sex for money with one of the mentioned would be forced. People who are of sound mind, i.e. aren't having sex for money for any reason other than their own desire to are not being forced. Please feel free to tear that apart if you find it flawed.
3) Makeup and revealing clothes... well, this wouldn't be an issue if men and women did it to equal measure, would it? The problem lies in the asymmetry. Personally, the amount of makeup a person chooses to put on and the amount of clothing (or lack thereof) they choose to wear doesn't bother me, although personally I'm getting bored with dolls in miniskirts, just saying. I've found that, as a general rule, the type of person I'm attracted to, both physically and socially, doesn't wear much makeup (if any at all) and generally dresses sensibly, but then again, that's not to say that my particular "type" is attractive and people who don't do that are unattractive, it's just my personal preference. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole fake tan, fake boobs, high heels, dresses that show of the bottom half of your bum thing has social "this is what a pretty young woman should look like" undertones, but by the same token I don't have any problem with bikinis and short shorts in the summertime (oh man, there was this one outfit an ex wore, involving shorts shorts, and it was just the hottest thing ever. Seriously, it was powerful sexy) so call me a hypocrite if you must, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between the two.
I know this was a whole bunch of "what's the deal with...?" but gender issues are a huge, complicated issue and frankly, the entire world is sexist. Seriously, the whole goddamn place. I'd be pleased if people could really discuss and dissect just how messed up it is, but more often than not, people are too invested in the way the world works to really try and change it. How depressing.
Second, laying out my bona fides here: I'm not a feminist, by default. I'm a dude, I can't really be a proper feminist. I'm a feminist sympathiser though, and I find a lot of their theories make sense. I'm nowhere near as well read as I should be and I'm nowhere near the radical end of the spectrum, but I won't lie, I'm closer to that side than I am to the weird, faux-feminist lipstick thing. I just don't understand how modern "empowerment" is even remotely empowering. To clarify:
1) How is Sasha Grey (or any pornstar) a symbol of feminist empowerment? I understand that there was a brief period in the sixties when certain feminists were fans of Playboy magazine for presenting a new, liberated female sexuality, but even then, it's kinda flawed. Fast-forward to modern hardcore pornography and it's the same flawed logic a hundredfold. Yes, I agree that women should have the same freedom to be sexual and express their sexuality as men have and yes, I think that the whole "a man is a player, a woman is a slut" ideal is just plain stupid. You can't advocate equality on one hand then hold women to this arbitrary standard of sexual "purity" on the other. The door swings both ways; if men and women are to be truly equal, there's no reason why a woman can't have sex with as many (or as few) men or women (or otherwise, provided the parties consent) as they like. That said, modern pornography isn't about sexual freedom, it's a male domination fantasy. Seriously, just watch some porn, I guarantee it'll feature at least one scene where the woman gazes reverently at the man's penis like it's work of art, there'll be at least one scene where the man will say "you like that?" and the woman will make some response like she's in the absolute throes of orgasmic pleasure because, oh I don't know, she has two penises in her arse. The vast majority of pornography is made under the pretense that women are to be used for male satisfaction, and I have not yet found any (admittedly I haven't really been looking) where it's the reverse. Pornstars, particularly ones in the public eye like Sasha Grey or Bree Olsen, don't present a new, aggressive take on female sexuality as much as they propagate a penis worship fantasy.
2) I don't think any sexual act is inherently sexist but it's all context dependent. I've heard the argument presented that stuff like fellatio, man on woman anal sex and even penetrative vaginal sex are all sexist weapons that hamstring female sexual freedoms, but I don't buy this so much, again because the door swings both ways. Humans aren't robots, sex isn't a transaction. It can involve a number of partners of any gender, its definition isn't so clear cut. The point is, if anyone involved in the activity derives pleasure from a certain action and everyone else involved is cool with it, I don't see the harm. Comfort and consent, guys. Comfort and consent. The issue comes out of, once again, expectation that women should act a certain way and do certain things. A woman giving a man a blowjob isn't necessarily sexist, but a man expecting her to, getting annoyed when she doesn't and acting as if she's doing something wrong for not, that is sexist. I had an ex who was particularly uncomfortable with the whole idea of oral sex, both giving and receiving, so we just never did it. It's not that she was wrong, of course she wasn't. She was uncomfortable with the idea and to insist upon it would have made her even less comfortable, so it's not as if she could ever properly consent to it. Prostitution is a bit sticky here, because it blurs the lines of what consent is, but my incredibly simplistic view on the issue is: Trafficked women, drugs addicts, single parents living in poverty and the mentally handicapped do not have the proper tools to consider their situation, so I'd say to have sex for money with one of the mentioned would be forced. People who are of sound mind, i.e. aren't having sex for money for any reason other than their own desire to are not being forced. Please feel free to tear that apart if you find it flawed.
3) Makeup and revealing clothes... well, this wouldn't be an issue if men and women did it to equal measure, would it? The problem lies in the asymmetry. Personally, the amount of makeup a person chooses to put on and the amount of clothing (or lack thereof) they choose to wear doesn't bother me, although personally I'm getting bored with dolls in miniskirts, just saying. I've found that, as a general rule, the type of person I'm attracted to, both physically and socially, doesn't wear much makeup (if any at all) and generally dresses sensibly, but then again, that's not to say that my particular "type" is attractive and people who don't do that are unattractive, it's just my personal preference. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole fake tan, fake boobs, high heels, dresses that show of the bottom half of your bum thing has social "this is what a pretty young woman should look like" undertones, but by the same token I don't have any problem with bikinis and short shorts in the summertime (oh man, there was this one outfit an ex wore, involving shorts shorts, and it was just the hottest thing ever. Seriously, it was powerful sexy) so call me a hypocrite if you must, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between the two.
I know this was a whole bunch of "what's the deal with...?" but gender issues are a huge, complicated issue and frankly, the entire world is sexist. Seriously, the whole goddamn place. I'd be pleased if people could really discuss and dissect just how messed up it is, but more often than not, people are too invested in the way the world works to really try and change it. How depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)