When this crime made it's way around the world a few years ago I had trouble processing the level of violence. Now, one of the offenders is being interviewed about that event and I am once again struck speechless as a different level of violence is being directed at the victim of the crime.
Make no mistake, victim blaming is an additional act of violence.
Advocates working to end violence against women often talk about sexual violence as not being about sex or desire, rather the crime comes out of the realm of a need for power and control as well as a sense of entitlement brought about by unearned social privilege. To commit the initial crime the men, in this case, would need to already have significantly harmful views of women, have justifications already formed in their minds, and only needed one additional factor to finally choose to commit such a violent crime. As it states in the interview these men believed their actions were justified because, in their view, she was violating a social norm being out past a time they, and society, had set for women to be home by.
The recently released interview further elaborates on how these men view their own actions, the views they have of women, and that they do not feel any degree of remorse for the violent crime that they committed.
"A decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy" - An attitude and/or belief about women.
"Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars
at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20% of girls
are good." - Another example of their attitudes and beliefs regarding women.
"had a right to teach them a lesson" - A justification.
"She was beggar girl. Her life was of no value." - A justification.
Attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which are then used to inform the actions or behaviors.
It is important to point out that these kinds of attitudes and beliefs do not just manifest randomly and it is even more important to point out that the attitudes and beliefs that became justifications for actions are common in every community. He very clearly draws a line between notions of "traditional" gender roles and the justifications he and the other men made for their actions. Not every person out there who is invested in "traditional" gender roles is on the path to commit acts of sexual violence; however, it is important to point out that had these men been raised differently they might have not done what they did.
There is a similar parallel in all sexual violence cases: attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which guide action. Harmful views about women and gender roles established early on, reinforced in various ways as men and women grow up, and, if left unchallenged, can become justifications for actions later in life. This why we need to challenge unassuming aspects of rape culture; narratives like "boys will be boys," pieces of media that normalize violence against women, aspects of culture that enforce traditional gender roles, and so on.
I'm sorry to end on a note that isn't exactly positive, but I don't think it would be appropriate. In this case to sanitize the message avoids the issue. We have a problem in our society, we cannot dismiss it as a "one-off" random event. We need to face it head on.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31698154
http://jezebel.com/delhi-bus-gang-rapist-mukesh-singh-blames-victim-for-fi-1688870998
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
Why this blog?
head things tend to get a little stale up in there. Ideas are important and it is good to get them down in more tangible forms to look back on or to share with others. I'm not sure what direction this blog is going to take but for now I'll be using it as a container for the various things that I get around to putting down on paper (so to speak).
I've brought over a few posts from a former blog to give whomever reads this a glimpse as to the kinds of things I talk about. The previous medium didn't really lend itself to long text posts and I kind of felt it was important to be a bit more deliberate with my writing. The other benefit of having a more appropriate venue for my writing is that I'll get some of this out my system so I stop writing essays into comment sections on various other social media...hopefully...
So, what else?
Do feel free to comment and/or ask questions. However, if you're of a particular group of people and feel an impulse to send "facts" about things "I might not have noticed before" so that I'll be able to "take the red pill and open my eyes" please don't bother. I've encountered that kind of "help" before and I am not at all interested.
I think that's all for now.
I've brought over a few posts from a former blog to give whomever reads this a glimpse as to the kinds of things I talk about. The previous medium didn't really lend itself to long text posts and I kind of felt it was important to be a bit more deliberate with my writing. The other benefit of having a more appropriate venue for my writing is that I'll get some of this out my system so I stop writing essays into comment sections on various other social media...hopefully...
So, what else?
Do feel free to comment and/or ask questions. However, if you're of a particular group of people and feel an impulse to send "facts" about things "I might not have noticed before" so that I'll be able to "take the red pill and open my eyes" please don't bother. I've encountered that kind of "help" before and I am not at all interested.
I think that's all for now.
Single Issue Politics
As the country in which I live gradually slides down a slope of
increasingly problematic systemic oppression, I can’t help but feel a
growing bitterness towards the democratic process and the current state
of it in this country.
With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting. While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner. Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.
With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season. This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.” However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to. Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence. It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.
Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”
While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading. Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes. This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election. The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.
This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign. An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?” It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.
Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others. The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too. They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested. In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses. The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.
I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.
With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting. While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner. Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.
With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season. This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.” However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to. Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence. It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.
Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”
While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading. Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes. This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election. The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.
This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign. An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?” It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.
Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others. The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too. They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested. In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses. The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.
I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9 - Far Beyond the Stars & Whitewashing
Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
I’m not sure Star Trek: Deep Space 9 ever really got the praise it should have considering it’s poignant social commentary that seemed to crop up periodically throughout the series. This time around I was watching the series having seen what went down in Ferguson as well as all the unfortunate events that dotted the timeline that was 2014. When it came to the end of the episode and the scene with Sisko and his father I couldn’t help but cry-laugh at the irony of the scene.
The episode involves Sisko being given visions of 1950s America and he experiences the world as Benny Russell, an African-American speculative fiction writer who must be absent on picture days because it would hurt the publication he wrote for if the public found out that he was a person of color. Taken as a standalone short film, critiqued in a vacuum, it is poignant all by itself, but when you consider the broader cultural context, current and historical contexts, and the nature of metafiction, this episode stands out as a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling.
The fact that Star Trek is fiction and they are lamenting the past or, rather, recognizing how terrifying it would be to live in a period of time when systemic racism was so prevalent really stands out because the time in which we live is not so far removed from the 1950s reality presented in this episode. Direct, overt, acts of racism like not showing up for staff photo day or rewriting your main character (as Benny isasked told to do) are not as
wide spread, but the systemic racism in pop culture is still just as
prevalent as it was in 1950s, it only manifests in much more subtle
ways. Consider the outrage that came out of white critics when
Quvenzhané Wallis was cast as Annie in the 2014 remake of the film of
the same name or the conservative nail-biting that popped up around the
holidays when an example of a black santa claus was brought up. What
about the panic
that was induced in white people when a rumor made it through the
internet that Idris Elba was being considered as the next actor to play
James Bond.
Meanwhile, Exodus: Gods and Kings is cast with principle characters all being Caucasian and the director of said film fervently defending his choice because he felt he couldn’t market a film that starred people of color. Avatar: the Last Airbender, a beloved show that featured, and was celebrated for, a multi-racial cast of characters was rereleased as a feature length film with Caucasian actors being cast in all the main roles. Finally, in recent weeks we’ve got word that Scarlett Johansson has signed on to star in a Hollywood version of Ghost in the Shell; a Japanese Anime/Manga that takes place in Japan, features a group of people who are all Japanese, and has critical political commentary on the United States (they are presented as the American Empire in the story).
Furthermore, you have to consider the fact that when it comes to POC telling their own stories they must be stories that match up to the current stereotypical views of POC; look no further than The Help and 12 Years a Slave. If POC are to tell their own stories they must do so in a way that does not make white people feel uncomfortable, guilty, or upset.
In each of the three examples of movies I’ve mentioned in this post there was a plethora of social commentary as fans of each story listed the various people of color that could have starred in each of the movies. The critiques also explored why whitewashing was so damaging to the people who enjoyed the source material as well as why representation is so important.
Again, the racism presented in “Far Beyond the Stars” doesn’t manifest so bluntly in our modern times, but it is no less present and no less harmful. Our only notions of a world without violence come from a fictional universe, this is how much work is ahead of us.
Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
It is the illusion, Captain, and it is a very scary thought Mr. Sisko.
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
I’m not sure Star Trek: Deep Space 9 ever really got the praise it should have considering it’s poignant social commentary that seemed to crop up periodically throughout the series. This time around I was watching the series having seen what went down in Ferguson as well as all the unfortunate events that dotted the timeline that was 2014. When it came to the end of the episode and the scene with Sisko and his father I couldn’t help but cry-laugh at the irony of the scene.
The episode involves Sisko being given visions of 1950s America and he experiences the world as Benny Russell, an African-American speculative fiction writer who must be absent on picture days because it would hurt the publication he wrote for if the public found out that he was a person of color. Taken as a standalone short film, critiqued in a vacuum, it is poignant all by itself, but when you consider the broader cultural context, current and historical contexts, and the nature of metafiction, this episode stands out as a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling.
The fact that Star Trek is fiction and they are lamenting the past or, rather, recognizing how terrifying it would be to live in a period of time when systemic racism was so prevalent really stands out because the time in which we live is not so far removed from the 1950s reality presented in this episode. Direct, overt, acts of racism like not showing up for staff photo day or rewriting your main character (as Benny is
Meanwhile, Exodus: Gods and Kings is cast with principle characters all being Caucasian and the director of said film fervently defending his choice because he felt he couldn’t market a film that starred people of color. Avatar: the Last Airbender, a beloved show that featured, and was celebrated for, a multi-racial cast of characters was rereleased as a feature length film with Caucasian actors being cast in all the main roles. Finally, in recent weeks we’ve got word that Scarlett Johansson has signed on to star in a Hollywood version of Ghost in the Shell; a Japanese Anime/Manga that takes place in Japan, features a group of people who are all Japanese, and has critical political commentary on the United States (they are presented as the American Empire in the story).
Furthermore, you have to consider the fact that when it comes to POC telling their own stories they must be stories that match up to the current stereotypical views of POC; look no further than The Help and 12 Years a Slave. If POC are to tell their own stories they must do so in a way that does not make white people feel uncomfortable, guilty, or upset.
In each of the three examples of movies I’ve mentioned in this post there was a plethora of social commentary as fans of each story listed the various people of color that could have starred in each of the movies. The critiques also explored why whitewashing was so damaging to the people who enjoyed the source material as well as why representation is so important.
Again, the racism presented in “Far Beyond the Stars” doesn’t manifest so bluntly in our modern times, but it is no less present and no less harmful. Our only notions of a world without violence come from a fictional universe, this is how much work is ahead of us.
Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
It is the illusion, Captain, and it is a very scary thought Mr. Sisko.
Thoughts on Ghomeshi
(Edit: Wrote this several days ago)
Alright, I just have to get my bit in as this story is breaking and I’m already starting to see a bunch of victim blaming narratives develop, especially in the comment section of Jian Ghomeshi’s facebook post. While we don’t yet have all the information I would implore people to consider any survivors that might be involved in this particular story. Considering our current culture of putting survivors of sexual violence on trial, I would remind everyone that there is nothing to gain by disclosing instances of abuse apart from those in question beginning their own healing journeys.
I take issue with the story presented to us mainly because of the language used in said post because it raises several red flags for me. Narratives around “jilted ex-girlfriends” have been used, too often, as a justification and/or an excuse for abuse (something we see a lot with revenge porn and sharing of explicit photos) and as justification and/or an excuse for dismissal of claims. The narrative of “a campaign of vengeance” has also been used to dismiss legitimate feelings of survivors when it comes to having been violated. And finally, bringing in a novel such as “Fifty Shades of Grey” to defend one’s behavior is a very troubling decision as the book has been heavily criticized for it’s portrayal of the BDSM community and it’s contribution to the normalization and eroticization of sexual violence.
For those in the BDSM community, consent and communication regarding sex acts is paramount. Straying from agreed upon acts between consenting parties is a violation of the rules of consent. Continuing agreed upon sex acts when consent has been revoked is a violation of the rules of consent. Consent can be revoked and consent must be ongoing to be valid. The notion of “we agreed to do this” is not a defense when the other party revokes consent, for whatever reason.
Too often, society turns on the survivors, faster than normal, when there is a person of fame involved as it is less likely that people will believe they are capable of such a crime. The myth of the easily identifiable offender is too prevalent in society and it acts as a barrier to survivors recognizing that their own experience as sexual violence if their offender did not fit the socially accepted description of an offender. The greater the fame, the less likely it is that people will believe the survivor.
We lose nothing by supporting survivors in cases like this.
Alright, I just have to get my bit in as this story is breaking and I’m already starting to see a bunch of victim blaming narratives develop, especially in the comment section of Jian Ghomeshi’s facebook post. While we don’t yet have all the information I would implore people to consider any survivors that might be involved in this particular story. Considering our current culture of putting survivors of sexual violence on trial, I would remind everyone that there is nothing to gain by disclosing instances of abuse apart from those in question beginning their own healing journeys.
I take issue with the story presented to us mainly because of the language used in said post because it raises several red flags for me. Narratives around “jilted ex-girlfriends” have been used, too often, as a justification and/or an excuse for abuse (something we see a lot with revenge porn and sharing of explicit photos) and as justification and/or an excuse for dismissal of claims. The narrative of “a campaign of vengeance” has also been used to dismiss legitimate feelings of survivors when it comes to having been violated. And finally, bringing in a novel such as “Fifty Shades of Grey” to defend one’s behavior is a very troubling decision as the book has been heavily criticized for it’s portrayal of the BDSM community and it’s contribution to the normalization and eroticization of sexual violence.
For those in the BDSM community, consent and communication regarding sex acts is paramount. Straying from agreed upon acts between consenting parties is a violation of the rules of consent. Continuing agreed upon sex acts when consent has been revoked is a violation of the rules of consent. Consent can be revoked and consent must be ongoing to be valid. The notion of “we agreed to do this” is not a defense when the other party revokes consent, for whatever reason.
Too often, society turns on the survivors, faster than normal, when there is a person of fame involved as it is less likely that people will believe they are capable of such a crime. The myth of the easily identifiable offender is too prevalent in society and it acts as a barrier to survivors recognizing that their own experience as sexual violence if their offender did not fit the socially accepted description of an offender. The greater the fame, the less likely it is that people will believe the survivor.
We lose nothing by supporting survivors in cases like this.
Business Hours
So I watched Cosmopolis. Decent enough film.
Cronenberg films always sort of resonate me well beyond the viewing,
which I think is a indication of the skill at play. There was a portion
of it where the lead character is having a conversation with someone and
she’s talking about the commodification or tracking of time; dividing
it up into measurable portions so that we can assign meaning or measure
things with it. Since the movie revolves around the nature of business
and unimaginable wealth the conversation got me thinking about the whole
notion of “Business Hours” and how that’s a product of the capitalistic
structure of our society. The hours in question have been deemed
“valuable” because they are the hours within which money can, and
should, be made; a holdover from our days of working with the earth,
can’t harvest in darkness. This has long since become irrelevant as the
world has gradually become smaller and smaller; we have “Business Hours”
in our own little pockets of the world, but it’s the people with the
power that have found a way to manage the entirety of time and commodify
all of it.
I’ll get to the people in power in a bit.
For now, I’m thinking about the nature of marking part of our day as “Business Hours.” It interests me because that is the part of the day that we’ve assigned meaning to and it is because that is the time of the day that money can be made. Hours outside of this, also known as “off hours” or “free time,” is not valuable because money isn’t necessarily made and tracked during this time. Yes, we buy things after we’re done work (groceries, medicine, alcohol, “entertainment”) but it is not tracked until the following “Business day” where people are paid to categorize, measure, and log what money changed hands and with whom. During our “valuable” time we must contribute to some greater goal in some form or another, it can be in large ways or small ways but we must “make good use of our time” after all, we’re being paid for it. Money makes things worth while. Money makes meaning. Money is meaning. Thus is capitalism.
Then there’s the notion of ideals. We’re supposed to find work that fits with our ideals, work towards some greater purpose as our own individuals minds determine that purpose; my mind likes numbers and money so accounting would give me purpose, for instance. We seek jobs and financial validation for whatever it is that our mind and who we are has identified as “important.” It’s all no more or no less important, there’s no inherent ranking, but in a world driven by money the ideals that lead to the most money are the ideals that our society holds as a priority. Our ideals drive our work, work must happen during “Business Hours” to count, our hours are commodified so our ideals have been commodified. Our ideals have a price tag. Our ideals have a bottom line. Some people seek validation and in our society that validation comes from financial sources; the best product gets the most financial support and financial validation. Many people aren’t looking for this top level validation and those at the top are fine with this because what fun is it to have “the most” if there are no others who you can see that you have more than. Having said that I think that a lot of people would like to have “the most” or receive more validation than they’re currently receiving; however, to get that “top level” one needs political maneuverings and that requires a personality type that is rather rare. We may have the ability to move, but if this movement does not result in greater financial gain for someone that they are not movements that count towards anything. Most are left wanting.
But capitalism has an answer for this.
Funny enough, the answer for people that are left wanting is the very notion of wanting itself. The best way to get people to buy something is to make them think that they want it and to make them think that it’ll be a solution. Much of our suffering revolves around the notion that we feel incomplete and we feel incomplete because we haven’t spent enough time figuring out what it is exactly we need out of life. Capitalism tells us that we need movie tickets, a car, or the latest “Thing X” and gets us to buy into the cycle of wanting. This distracts us from the greater, and more messy, practice of self-exploration to discover our own needs; incidentally it is also much hard to market to a person searching for their own needs. Want is simple. Want is profitable. As long as people are wanting things they’ll be too distracted to figure out what it is that they are needing. We spend a great portion of our life time wanting and lusting after different things and we’re always certain that whatever it is that we want, it is going to be the thing that fixes us. We don’t know what’s broken because we haven’t spent time looking at what’s going on; I would posit that there’s nothing wrong with us in the first place, humans are beautifully and wonderfully complex. Capitalism needs problems it can sell solutions to, so it reframes beautiful and wonderful human complexity as a simple problem with a simple solution. Oh, and the solution comes in the color of your choice. To reflect your “individuality.” We’re all special, unique individuals buying the same lies one way or another.
I mean just think. I know I “need” money because it will allow me to buy the things I “need” and the things I “want.” I know I need food, for instance, so I know that I need a job. But I also know that having food is not enough, I am presented with so many examples of people who are much happier than I am because they have “Thing X” so I, in turn, begin to want “Thing X.” As the days go on and I am being constantly exposed to all the people who are happier than I am, the want turns to need and I begin to work the financial considerations for “Thing X” into my personal budget. I no longer know or care about why I feel I need “Thing X” all I know is that the want feels very real. Acquiring “Thing X” solves nothing because the need for it wasn’t real in the first place, but because we’re inundated with the cycle of need we don’t notice. All that ends up happening is that I realize that “Thing X” wasn’t what I needed, it must be “Thing Y” over there because those people who have it are much happier. I avoid the scary, ugly truth: I am unhappy. So long as I’m pursuing a “solution” I don’t have to stop and think and sit with the fact that I am unhappy. We’re told on a regular basis that we should not every be unhappy, even though I would argue that being unhappy is a very healthy, human experience.
But again, in a world of “Business Hours” sitting with a feeling for a moment takes us out of the cycle of consumption; takes us off the easily traceable path that has been laid out for us by capitalism: buy toys until college, by college until “real world,” in the real world we must by a house and car, eventually we get married and have kids. All the while we must be spending money along the way. Sitting with ourselves and our thoughts is not easily traceable and trackable, so it is not in our best interest to do so. Days must be productive and meaningful, they are only meaningful and productive if we’ve made money.
I think this is all rather incoherent but I needed to get the thoughts down somewhere. Maybe I’ll write more later…
I’ll get to the people in power in a bit.
For now, I’m thinking about the nature of marking part of our day as “Business Hours.” It interests me because that is the part of the day that we’ve assigned meaning to and it is because that is the time of the day that money can be made. Hours outside of this, also known as “off hours” or “free time,” is not valuable because money isn’t necessarily made and tracked during this time. Yes, we buy things after we’re done work (groceries, medicine, alcohol, “entertainment”) but it is not tracked until the following “Business day” where people are paid to categorize, measure, and log what money changed hands and with whom. During our “valuable” time we must contribute to some greater goal in some form or another, it can be in large ways or small ways but we must “make good use of our time” after all, we’re being paid for it. Money makes things worth while. Money makes meaning. Money is meaning. Thus is capitalism.
Then there’s the notion of ideals. We’re supposed to find work that fits with our ideals, work towards some greater purpose as our own individuals minds determine that purpose; my mind likes numbers and money so accounting would give me purpose, for instance. We seek jobs and financial validation for whatever it is that our mind and who we are has identified as “important.” It’s all no more or no less important, there’s no inherent ranking, but in a world driven by money the ideals that lead to the most money are the ideals that our society holds as a priority. Our ideals drive our work, work must happen during “Business Hours” to count, our hours are commodified so our ideals have been commodified. Our ideals have a price tag. Our ideals have a bottom line. Some people seek validation and in our society that validation comes from financial sources; the best product gets the most financial support and financial validation. Many people aren’t looking for this top level validation and those at the top are fine with this because what fun is it to have “the most” if there are no others who you can see that you have more than. Having said that I think that a lot of people would like to have “the most” or receive more validation than they’re currently receiving; however, to get that “top level” one needs political maneuverings and that requires a personality type that is rather rare. We may have the ability to move, but if this movement does not result in greater financial gain for someone that they are not movements that count towards anything. Most are left wanting.
But capitalism has an answer for this.
Funny enough, the answer for people that are left wanting is the very notion of wanting itself. The best way to get people to buy something is to make them think that they want it and to make them think that it’ll be a solution. Much of our suffering revolves around the notion that we feel incomplete and we feel incomplete because we haven’t spent enough time figuring out what it is exactly we need out of life. Capitalism tells us that we need movie tickets, a car, or the latest “Thing X” and gets us to buy into the cycle of wanting. This distracts us from the greater, and more messy, practice of self-exploration to discover our own needs; incidentally it is also much hard to market to a person searching for their own needs. Want is simple. Want is profitable. As long as people are wanting things they’ll be too distracted to figure out what it is that they are needing. We spend a great portion of our life time wanting and lusting after different things and we’re always certain that whatever it is that we want, it is going to be the thing that fixes us. We don’t know what’s broken because we haven’t spent time looking at what’s going on; I would posit that there’s nothing wrong with us in the first place, humans are beautifully and wonderfully complex. Capitalism needs problems it can sell solutions to, so it reframes beautiful and wonderful human complexity as a simple problem with a simple solution. Oh, and the solution comes in the color of your choice. To reflect your “individuality.” We’re all special, unique individuals buying the same lies one way or another.
I mean just think. I know I “need” money because it will allow me to buy the things I “need” and the things I “want.” I know I need food, for instance, so I know that I need a job. But I also know that having food is not enough, I am presented with so many examples of people who are much happier than I am because they have “Thing X” so I, in turn, begin to want “Thing X.” As the days go on and I am being constantly exposed to all the people who are happier than I am, the want turns to need and I begin to work the financial considerations for “Thing X” into my personal budget. I no longer know or care about why I feel I need “Thing X” all I know is that the want feels very real. Acquiring “Thing X” solves nothing because the need for it wasn’t real in the first place, but because we’re inundated with the cycle of need we don’t notice. All that ends up happening is that I realize that “Thing X” wasn’t what I needed, it must be “Thing Y” over there because those people who have it are much happier. I avoid the scary, ugly truth: I am unhappy. So long as I’m pursuing a “solution” I don’t have to stop and think and sit with the fact that I am unhappy. We’re told on a regular basis that we should not every be unhappy, even though I would argue that being unhappy is a very healthy, human experience.
But again, in a world of “Business Hours” sitting with a feeling for a moment takes us out of the cycle of consumption; takes us off the easily traceable path that has been laid out for us by capitalism: buy toys until college, by college until “real world,” in the real world we must by a house and car, eventually we get married and have kids. All the while we must be spending money along the way. Sitting with ourselves and our thoughts is not easily traceable and trackable, so it is not in our best interest to do so. Days must be productive and meaningful, they are only meaningful and productive if we’ve made money.
I think this is all rather incoherent but I needed to get the thoughts down somewhere. Maybe I’ll write more later…
"Man of the People" - Star Trek: TNG, Season 6 Ep. 03
Some thoughts as I watch.
This isn’t the first time the show has crafted an episode around Deanna Troi and in most of the narratives she is at the mercy of the storyline; an otherworldly being uses her to experience the human life cycle (Anita Sarkeesian has a breakdown of this trope here), an episode involving an arranged marriage, and, in this episode, an empath exploits her own empathic abilities for his own purposes. There are more examples and I realize the show was coming out of a different era (late 80s, early 90s) but there is a troubling treatment of Deanna Troi’s character and she is rarely given an opportunity to explore her own storyline on her own terms. Even in “Face of the Enemy” where she plays a critical role in infiltrating the Romulan Empire and aiding some defectors, she is still kidnapped and forced into the role.
But ultimately, I’m not writing this to discuss the treatment of Deanna Troi’s character in the show. As I watch “Man of the People,” I am noticing a aspect of the narrative where Troi experiences a kind of hyper-sexuality which ultimately turns into jealousy towards the empath who has exploited her ability for his own purposes. What I noticed is that the apparent “hyper-sexuality” of Troi is used to portray a negative symptom of the psychological invasion; ultimately painting the narrative as: “there is something wrong with Troi because she is hyper-sexual and jealous.” When I consider other speculative fiction, whether it’s historical, contemporary, or futuristic, I can think of other instances where a female character is shown to be “not right” by behaving in a way that is being show to us as “hyper-sexual.” However, the way they show this is by having the character initiate romantic encounters, have visible sexual attraction to whomever the character is attracted to, and have a character who is only interested in the sexual gratification of the encounter (in most narratives they “use” men and “discard” them afterward).
Meanwhile, the same behavior for male characters is usually seen as par-for-the-course and never amounts to anything beyond defining an aspect of that character: James T. Kirk and William T. Riker behave in similar ways but it’s never defined as a negative trait, nearly every Sitcom has a male character who’s promiscuity is used as a running joke, and for a lot of stories involving adolescent males have “getting laid” as a core narrative. Within the Star Trek universe, the Vulcan’s are given a biological condition known as Pon Farr. While it effects both male and female Vulcans, it is typically portrayed in different ways. When Tuvoc and Spock experience the condition the narrative revolves around how does the crew of their respective ships save their lives; ultimately going down a road of treating it as a medical condition with respect and seriousness. For T’Pol and Torres, the narrative moves more towards a hyper-sexualization (T’Pol) and gives an excuse for sexualization of the particular character or the narrative moves down the road of the “animalistic” portrayal (Torres).
Ultimately, the Pon Farr is a source of concern and is taken seriously if the characters are male, while the Pon Farr is an opportunity to sexualize female characters who experience the condition.
Regardless of the situation, a female character taking control of her sexuality and initiating sexual/romantic encounters is seen as a point of concern, whereas male characters easily incorporate such behavior and it is never a focal point for a narrative. I haven’t really given it voice until now and I know others have noticed this in mainstream media, but it is extremely apparent in “Man of the People” and I would suggest this is one of the subtle ways in which Gender Roles, the Gender Binary, and Gender Binary Sexual Scripts are reinforced in our society.
This isn’t the first time the show has crafted an episode around Deanna Troi and in most of the narratives she is at the mercy of the storyline; an otherworldly being uses her to experience the human life cycle (Anita Sarkeesian has a breakdown of this trope here), an episode involving an arranged marriage, and, in this episode, an empath exploits her own empathic abilities for his own purposes. There are more examples and I realize the show was coming out of a different era (late 80s, early 90s) but there is a troubling treatment of Deanna Troi’s character and she is rarely given an opportunity to explore her own storyline on her own terms. Even in “Face of the Enemy” where she plays a critical role in infiltrating the Romulan Empire and aiding some defectors, she is still kidnapped and forced into the role.
But ultimately, I’m not writing this to discuss the treatment of Deanna Troi’s character in the show. As I watch “Man of the People,” I am noticing a aspect of the narrative where Troi experiences a kind of hyper-sexuality which ultimately turns into jealousy towards the empath who has exploited her ability for his own purposes. What I noticed is that the apparent “hyper-sexuality” of Troi is used to portray a negative symptom of the psychological invasion; ultimately painting the narrative as: “there is something wrong with Troi because she is hyper-sexual and jealous.” When I consider other speculative fiction, whether it’s historical, contemporary, or futuristic, I can think of other instances where a female character is shown to be “not right” by behaving in a way that is being show to us as “hyper-sexual.” However, the way they show this is by having the character initiate romantic encounters, have visible sexual attraction to whomever the character is attracted to, and have a character who is only interested in the sexual gratification of the encounter (in most narratives they “use” men and “discard” them afterward).
Meanwhile, the same behavior for male characters is usually seen as par-for-the-course and never amounts to anything beyond defining an aspect of that character: James T. Kirk and William T. Riker behave in similar ways but it’s never defined as a negative trait, nearly every Sitcom has a male character who’s promiscuity is used as a running joke, and for a lot of stories involving adolescent males have “getting laid” as a core narrative. Within the Star Trek universe, the Vulcan’s are given a biological condition known as Pon Farr. While it effects both male and female Vulcans, it is typically portrayed in different ways. When Tuvoc and Spock experience the condition the narrative revolves around how does the crew of their respective ships save their lives; ultimately going down a road of treating it as a medical condition with respect and seriousness. For T’Pol and Torres, the narrative moves more towards a hyper-sexualization (T’Pol) and gives an excuse for sexualization of the particular character or the narrative moves down the road of the “animalistic” portrayal (Torres).
Ultimately, the Pon Farr is a source of concern and is taken seriously if the characters are male, while the Pon Farr is an opportunity to sexualize female characters who experience the condition.
Regardless of the situation, a female character taking control of her sexuality and initiating sexual/romantic encounters is seen as a point of concern, whereas male characters easily incorporate such behavior and it is never a focal point for a narrative. I haven’t really given it voice until now and I know others have noticed this in mainstream media, but it is extremely apparent in “Man of the People” and I would suggest this is one of the subtle ways in which Gender Roles, the Gender Binary, and Gender Binary Sexual Scripts are reinforced in our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)