Objectification as empowerment
John Mitchell, old college roommate and reporter for a number of Massachusettes papers has been responding to the post about Debra Lefave. Pithy, erudite and smartly written, I direct you to those comments in that post.
I ws going to respond to him there but realized that I wanted to give the arguement a front a center position.
Here it is.
I remember being a teenager and, in trying to prove how smart I was, I made 2 arguments. One that when the characters on a Star Trek episode aged too quickly they were removed fromtheir respective posts and two, that Romeo & Juilet were 13 year olds and that's they way things were done "back in the day".
The Star Trek argument was to prove that Reagan was too old to be in the white house. That didn't go over too well in conservative New Jersey and the Romeo stance was to prove, with puffed out chest, that, hey, we're old enough to know what we can and cannot do. Of course, we weren't. And, of course, I was a horny teenager wanting permission.
And therein lies the rub. A person of sexual maturity doesn't require an adult's permission. So, you are absolutely correct in your assesments.
This is a "capital based country". The dollar rules all. All decisions. All motivations are determined by the power of "have's" and who wants to be a "have not"? This is the primary reason I believe that rap has emerged as the dominant music form. It is disposable, has no ability to last so you always need the new cd to remain current., there is no allegiance to artists because it is disposable, the form itself worships material things and demeans women.
What did we learn in 1997 about Titanic? 14 year old girls went, over and over, to see it. Boys who wanted to "get with" these girls took them to see it, over and over. Who bought the posters? (who always buys the posters, screams and cries at the bands?) Who bought the books on Leo D.?
14 year old girls.
So, the entertainment industry reacted in kind. Hence the youth explosion of 2000. Everything suddenly skewed so young. The WB. Britney. Christina. You couldn't get away from it.
But, the E industry failed to recognize a very basic tenet of that formula, which I have learned and will share with you now.
14 year old girls are sexual in image only. They have no concept of what it means to be sexual in any way, shape or form.
Then they 'blossom". And their choices ALWAYS change from the Ken doll (read: pretty but non-threatening, read: gay) to th dirty rocker.
The 17-18 year old doesn't want Aaron Carter, or Rick Astley, or the Bay City Rollers or Pat Boone. They want Elvis, Robert Plant, Tommy Lee and the dudes from "Jet". This is the manifestation of their true sexual awakening.
Okay, but there will always be 14 year old girls, you say.
Sure, but who wants to like the same things their older sibling likes? Forget that, they're gonna find their own objets de desire. So, catering to the teenage girl market is to constantly be chasing butterflies up a hill.
It took a few years for the market to figure this out and they didn't really do it on purpose. It just happened. Did TV suddenly get smarter? It looks like it, but it really hasn't. Lost, Desperate Housewives, 24 were all under the radar until the Dawson's Creek crowd finally ran their course.
So, I would submit to you that, while much of TV is crappy, weed through the pablum and you have some great crap out there. I am sure that a 21 year old John Mitchell would have been a Lost fan.
And, why do the girls want to dress like Paris? Or in Daisy Dukes? Is it self esteem? Well, yes. I think we are living in a weird era of definition. Take the fashion industry. My wife watches America's Next Top Model. And Project Runway. and I caught Isaac Mizrahi on Jon Favreu's version of Fernando's Hideaway, "Dinner for Five" and the brilliant Sacha Baron Cohen as the gay, german., fashionista tv personality.
What I have gleaned, in a nutshell, is that this is one catty, shallow, self serving, untrustowrthy bunch of cretins. They will say anything to get you to like them or to get on tv.
But, this cult of cannibalistic gossipmongering appeals to, well, the very people who live and die every day in a world of gossip. Teenage girls.
Without any prompting my 12 year old daughter told me about a party she went to where her "enemy" was. How does she suddenly have an enemy? WTF?
Could it be that Liz is about to become a teenager and getting a little dramatic the way, it seems, girls do? I would rather believe that than believe it is all the product of to too much television. (Although, I am constantly amazed at the number of shows on Disney and Nickelodeon that take place, at least 50% in school, but NEVER NEVER NEVER show the kids in a classroom or doing homework.)
So, it's a vicious cycle. We want our girls to develop self esteem but we also want and need cash. We aren't going to get their money through a science fair and they aren't gonna drop 100 bucks at a comic convention (which, while geeky, at least promotes reading and imagination) so, how do we get little girls' cash? We sell them things they need for their self esteem. To be popular. They NEED perfume, bracelets, clothes. Boys will wear the same jeans for a week in a row. (I have and I'm none too proud of it) But, girls, well, not only have we convinced them that they need more and more, but to compete with other girls in school they believe they need more and more and those girls they are competing with are watching more and more television which is telling them what they need to look and feel good about themselves and then they go buy that product and the cycle continues.
It is the rare girl who doesn't think of herself as more than an object nowadays because girls are victims of a consumer based society that objectifies them, but, more importantly, makes their own self-objectification appear to be self-empowerment. Which, as we know, is the exact opposite. But, Howard Stern spent years talking to porn stars as objects and as humans and now we have more girls taking their clothes off, objectifying themselves, dancing naked on the internet, directing orgy action they are participating in, then ever before. Is it empowering or is it a farce?
I have often said it was amazing that men were able to convince women that mini-skirts were sexy and empowering and that men got them to accept and wear them. 20 years later it was the form fitting spandex mini-dress. Nowadays its.....whatever you see everywhere.
It's kind of insidious, really. Genius, actually. The best way to get people to conform to your whims is to make them believe that it is their idea and that they are empowered by it.
Look at the Domination/submission world. And entire lifestyle based on men who want to take aggression out on women (I'm exaggerating, but I have had enough experience with people in that world to feel that I am 80-85% correct) and women who believe they are "empowered" by being subjugated.
It would be brilliant were it not so sad.
So, the capitalism train moves on. Since the oldest profession is prostitution it only makes sense that the "women as object" industry would lead the charge.
Now, look at eastern Europe. We brought capitalism. Now the porn industry and sex slave industry is booming.
What lies ahead for Iraq?
I ws going to respond to him there but realized that I wanted to give the arguement a front a center position.
Here it is.
I remember being a teenager and, in trying to prove how smart I was, I made 2 arguments. One that when the characters on a Star Trek episode aged too quickly they were removed fromtheir respective posts and two, that Romeo & Juilet were 13 year olds and that's they way things were done "back in the day".
The Star Trek argument was to prove that Reagan was too old to be in the white house. That didn't go over too well in conservative New Jersey and the Romeo stance was to prove, with puffed out chest, that, hey, we're old enough to know what we can and cannot do. Of course, we weren't. And, of course, I was a horny teenager wanting permission.
And therein lies the rub. A person of sexual maturity doesn't require an adult's permission. So, you are absolutely correct in your assesments.
This is a "capital based country". The dollar rules all. All decisions. All motivations are determined by the power of "have's" and who wants to be a "have not"? This is the primary reason I believe that rap has emerged as the dominant music form. It is disposable, has no ability to last so you always need the new cd to remain current., there is no allegiance to artists because it is disposable, the form itself worships material things and demeans women.
What did we learn in 1997 about Titanic? 14 year old girls went, over and over, to see it. Boys who wanted to "get with" these girls took them to see it, over and over. Who bought the posters? (who always buys the posters, screams and cries at the bands?) Who bought the books on Leo D.?
14 year old girls.
So, the entertainment industry reacted in kind. Hence the youth explosion of 2000. Everything suddenly skewed so young. The WB. Britney. Christina. You couldn't get away from it.
But, the E industry failed to recognize a very basic tenet of that formula, which I have learned and will share with you now.
14 year old girls are sexual in image only. They have no concept of what it means to be sexual in any way, shape or form.
Then they 'blossom". And their choices ALWAYS change from the Ken doll (read: pretty but non-threatening, read: gay) to th dirty rocker.
The 17-18 year old doesn't want Aaron Carter, or Rick Astley, or the Bay City Rollers or Pat Boone. They want Elvis, Robert Plant, Tommy Lee and the dudes from "Jet". This is the manifestation of their true sexual awakening.
Okay, but there will always be 14 year old girls, you say.
Sure, but who wants to like the same things their older sibling likes? Forget that, they're gonna find their own objets de desire. So, catering to the teenage girl market is to constantly be chasing butterflies up a hill.
It took a few years for the market to figure this out and they didn't really do it on purpose. It just happened. Did TV suddenly get smarter? It looks like it, but it really hasn't. Lost, Desperate Housewives, 24 were all under the radar until the Dawson's Creek crowd finally ran their course.
So, I would submit to you that, while much of TV is crappy, weed through the pablum and you have some great crap out there. I am sure that a 21 year old John Mitchell would have been a Lost fan.
And, why do the girls want to dress like Paris? Or in Daisy Dukes? Is it self esteem? Well, yes. I think we are living in a weird era of definition. Take the fashion industry. My wife watches America's Next Top Model. And Project Runway. and I caught Isaac Mizrahi on Jon Favreu's version of Fernando's Hideaway, "Dinner for Five" and the brilliant Sacha Baron Cohen as the gay, german., fashionista tv personality.
What I have gleaned, in a nutshell, is that this is one catty, shallow, self serving, untrustowrthy bunch of cretins. They will say anything to get you to like them or to get on tv.
But, this cult of cannibalistic gossipmongering appeals to, well, the very people who live and die every day in a world of gossip. Teenage girls.
Without any prompting my 12 year old daughter told me about a party she went to where her "enemy" was. How does she suddenly have an enemy? WTF?
Could it be that Liz is about to become a teenager and getting a little dramatic the way, it seems, girls do? I would rather believe that than believe it is all the product of to too much television. (Although, I am constantly amazed at the number of shows on Disney and Nickelodeon that take place, at least 50% in school, but NEVER NEVER NEVER show the kids in a classroom or doing homework.)
So, it's a vicious cycle. We want our girls to develop self esteem but we also want and need cash. We aren't going to get their money through a science fair and they aren't gonna drop 100 bucks at a comic convention (which, while geeky, at least promotes reading and imagination) so, how do we get little girls' cash? We sell them things they need for their self esteem. To be popular. They NEED perfume, bracelets, clothes. Boys will wear the same jeans for a week in a row. (I have and I'm none too proud of it) But, girls, well, not only have we convinced them that they need more and more, but to compete with other girls in school they believe they need more and more and those girls they are competing with are watching more and more television which is telling them what they need to look and feel good about themselves and then they go buy that product and the cycle continues.
It is the rare girl who doesn't think of herself as more than an object nowadays because girls are victims of a consumer based society that objectifies them, but, more importantly, makes their own self-objectification appear to be self-empowerment. Which, as we know, is the exact opposite. But, Howard Stern spent years talking to porn stars as objects and as humans and now we have more girls taking their clothes off, objectifying themselves, dancing naked on the internet, directing orgy action they are participating in, then ever before. Is it empowering or is it a farce?
I have often said it was amazing that men were able to convince women that mini-skirts were sexy and empowering and that men got them to accept and wear them. 20 years later it was the form fitting spandex mini-dress. Nowadays its.....whatever you see everywhere.
It's kind of insidious, really. Genius, actually. The best way to get people to conform to your whims is to make them believe that it is their idea and that they are empowered by it.
Look at the Domination/submission world. And entire lifestyle based on men who want to take aggression out on women (I'm exaggerating, but I have had enough experience with people in that world to feel that I am 80-85% correct) and women who believe they are "empowered" by being subjugated.
It would be brilliant were it not so sad.
So, the capitalism train moves on. Since the oldest profession is prostitution it only makes sense that the "women as object" industry would lead the charge.
Now, look at eastern Europe. We brought capitalism. Now the porn industry and sex slave industry is booming.
What lies ahead for Iraq?
posted by Allen Lulu | 11:52 AM
5 Comments:
"Objectification as empowerment"
You got me here. I totally agree already.
"This is the primary reason I believe that rap has emerged as the dominant music form. It is disposable, has no ability to last so you always need the new cd to remain current., there is no allegiance to artists because it is disposable, the form itself worships material things and demeans women."
Except for Run DMC's "It's Tricky" - that, sir, is timeless work.
It's funny, I never really thought of rap that way, but, in essence, it is pop music, it is Frankie Avalon in a way, isn't it, and those are made to be disposable.
Of course, I would argue that sometimes the most shallow, disposable things turn out to be miraculous and indispensable in the end - I'm thinking of the music of Annette Funicello, for instance, whose music holds great wonder for me or Bananarama, who I adore.
"14 year old girls are sexual in image only. They have no concept of what it means to be sexual in any way, shape or form."
Indeed and I think that the men who fall for them are projecting a hell of a lot on them in regard to what they desire and not the reality of the situation. But it's easy to do that with something that appears to be a blank slate, I guess . . . though in reality, 14 year olds are anything but blank slates. Unfinished slates with room for influence, sure.
Of course, I think this is normal in our modern celebrity culture, where people routinely convince themselves where they know people they do not know in the slightest. It's a way of situating yourself next to an untouchable, whether that high caste delicacy be a movie star, a pop star, or the cheerleader down the street.
"Then they 'blossom". And their choices ALWAYS change from the Ken doll (read: pretty but non-threatening, read: gay) to th dirty rocker."
At first . . . but by the time they're out of college, most females seem to only talk the talk and turn away from this. I know far too many women who have ended up with "dangerous guys" only to try to turn them into "safe ones." I suppose that is the logical behavior when a woman is beginning to plan for family dynamics, but I contend one can be a dangerous guy to the world at large and still be good husband material.
"Sure, but who wants to like the same things their older sibling likes? Forget that, they're gonna find their own objets de desire. So, catering to the teenage girl market is to constantly be chasing butterflies up a hill."
Well, this is true market analysis, that is for sure. The older the person, I think, the less the turnaround in what they are interested in, the more people latch onto taste and stick with it, which makes it a slow but steady racket. The 14 year old girl scam, on the other hand, is a quick big buck one and some people, obviously, can't resist it and think it is worth the effort. The reason for this, I imagine, is that, for whatever reason, 14 year old girls have more access to money. I'm often surprised, in fact, the number of parents I do meet who can't apparently say no and can't seem to figure out ways for their kids to indulge, but to earn their indulgence.
"I would submit to you that, while much of TV is crappy, weed through the pablum and you have some great crap out there. I am sure that a 21 year old John Mitchell would have been a Lost fan."
I would agree to an extent - 40 year old John Mitchell is a Lost fan (the only broadcast show I bother with). On the other hand, I think - and I would be sad if this was not the case - my standards have gotten higher in 20 years and the things I look for are different than they were. I am no longer seeking out time passers. For me to watch a TV show, it has to engage me in a way that I feel the time is worth the journey of discovery. In other words, if it doesn't challenge Land of the Lost in my pantheon, then it's just so much shit.
"But, this cult of cannibalistic gossipmongering appeals to, well, the very people who live and die every day in a world of gossip. Teenage girls."
Well that is true. Desperate people who will screw over children for a buck, in other words. But, of course, the people you name hardly live in anything resembling reality and probably never did - reality is a three foot radius around them and their job is to make sure that the view beyond that radius is exciting and profitable.
"So, it's a vicious cycle."
And the cycle you proceed to outline is correct, as I see it. What more can I say?
"It is the rare girl who doesn't think of herself as more than an object nowadays because girls are victims of a consumer based society that objectifies them, but, more importantly, makes their own self-objectification appear to be self-empowerment."
Ditto . . . as that fat old guy says.
"now we have more girls taking their clothes off, objectifying themselves, dancing naked on the internet, directing orgy action they are participating in, then ever before. Is it empowering or is it a farce?"
You know my answer. But, I also think that most people are dim, don't listen to their instincts, are incapable of reading other people with any skill, and desperate to be loved. It's a bad combination when you are also naive and young and the people who are older than you recognize that.
"It's kind of insidious, really. Genius, actually. The best way to get people to conform to your whims is to make them believe that it is their idea and that they are empowered by it."
You have no argument from me here, either. I have always been highly amused by the women who become exotic dancers, strippers, and porn stars for empowerment. Now THAT is just damn funny.
"So, the capitalism train moves on. Since the oldest profession is prostitution it only makes sense that the "women as object" industry would lead the charge.
Now, look at eastern Europe. We brought capitalism. Now the porn industry and sex slave industry is booming.
What lies ahead for Iraq?"
Indeed. That's the first thing that happened with the Internet, it's the first thing that happens in Asia when things boom.
Strangely, I have encountered lately a number of good documentaries about the attitudes towards young women in other countries. There is, of course, "Born Into Brothels," a movie that really, really affected me in a major way. More recently, I saw a short documentary called "Bride Kidnappings in Kyrgistan," which is about exactly what it says it is about and its astonishing to see the way women are treated as property to be tossed around and expected to just make the best of it.
I just watched a Frontline episode called "Sex Slave." It's riveting for its truths. It's about women in Eastern Europe who are abducted into slavery prostitution rings and there is one section of it where a husband goes after the pimp to get his wife back. What is astonishing to me, and this was also the case with the Bride Kidnappings movie, is the complicity of other women in this treatment. Older women, usually, who, very clearly in at least some of the cases, were treated similarly when they were young and now it is all they can do to leap on an old lady bandwagon and make the young girls go through the same pain that they did.
It will happen in Iraq if it hasn't already and once our war has turned Iraqi women into whores, the Islamic fundamentalists will only be more angry at us.
Oh, I read the account of Lefave getting off . . . it seemed fair enough to me, in that the family was not pursuing the case because of traumatizing the boy - that's really their decision to make. Being bipolar isn't necessarily a great excuse for sleeping with a 14 year old boy, but then again, the manic portion of that disease is a particularly troubling aspect of it that many don't think about as much as the depressive side. So, I don't know. I'm not a fly on the wall . . .
Don't get me wrong. Some rap IS timeless. Public Enemy's first 2 albums still hold up, and, strangely, even though it is a direct attack at Nelly, KRS-One's The Mix Tape is surprisingly resonating. But the disposable aspect of rap, that is brilliant. Mainly because the industry has been decrying theft and yet, do nothing to foster talent. So, they dig their own graves. Good for them, download away!
Yes, girls often revert back to the good guys. I'm really just talking about teenagers there, but, also, I live in Los Angeles, which, though microcosmic of the world in a way, is also anathema to reality in many ways.
Out here we are deluged with once hot girls whose standards were so high or their self image so distorted that they spent most of their 20's searching for a "hot guy", that, once they hit their 30's they will take just about anything. I've always said that in LA the best dating situation for a male is to be 32. And have a good personality and be relatively okay looking. 20-somethings want to be desired and30 year old men would deinitely provide them with attention but,at the same time, 40-something women become attractive. And if they are the antecedent of their 20 something counterparts, then they are much more desperate and are looking back on a misspent youth spent searching for the unnattainable. Go, 32 year old man. Enjoy all that California has to offer.
The reason 14 year old girls have money.......Well, first off our generation are sucky parents. For some reason so many of them over indulge their children without any sense whatsover.
Lemme tell ya a little story.
Liz was almost illiterate before last year. She is home schooled and in HS you are only as good as your teacher. Her teacher is a moron. (Jana is, obviously, not) So, here was an 11 year old with no sense of comprehension or punctuation.
I made a deal. She wanted an iPod. Okie Doke. What did she ever do to deserve one, I asked? WHy should she have one? Because hse is cute. Not good enough.
I had 2 copies of the first Harry Potter book. Here's the deal, I told her.
I will read with you, on the phone, every night. (The first few days were interminable. 1/2 hours on one paragraph.....)
But, for every page you read, you get 10 cents.
In a week she had finished the first chapter, called me at the gym and told me everything that had happened. One year later, she had read 1500 pages, I floated her 20 bucks, she bought her Nano. 7 parents I have spoken to are now using this method.
Liz learned hot to read and also, learned how to earn.
But, parents indulge, for no reason. Mothers want to undo whatever trauma they believe they had in their childhood and fathers are suckers for "daddy's little girl".
They also see role models like Britney, Hilary, Avril and, gasp, Paris. (Liz's mother dropped Paris' name no less than four times in the hospital in the hopes that someone would appreciate her anecdote. No one did) These women are why I am such a big fan of Amanda Palmer from Dresden Dolls. She is a great role model. Perfect? By no means. Talented? Yes. Airbrushed? No. In fact, she looks weirdly dumpy, like she sweats a lot when she is playing. I want a female role model for my daughter who isn't just a body with no talent and no brains. Raising a daughter is a bitch.
Also, teen girls have money because they don't have to spend anything. BOYS will take them to movies and buy them popcorn in the hopes of gettin' some. So, they have more disposable cash, by ratio, then single gay men.
Bride Kidnappings of Kyrgistan was depressing, amazing, terrifying, jolting and made me feel dirty and angry at the world.
It also just bores out what I am saying about the second class depiction of women. It hasn't stopped. I don't think it will. Sad, really.
As far as good TV. Hmmm.....We are big tv watchers in this house. I have always been one so I have no problem with it. I get off on just about everything. Flavor Flav has a Bachelor type reality show? Bring on the carnies, baby! TV has become such a trash haven that I just sit back and enjoy.
But, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report give me hope. Easily the most insightful and biting satire I have seen on TV for years. And since more young people get their news from these sources I am excited for a new generation of cynics. The next 10 years might actually be fun.
Movies I find hard to get my ass to, although I am looking forward to Superman because I love Bryan Singer and I think he is doing the right thing by taking up where Superman II left off.....and I am a geek.
Wait, the new Superman movie takes up where Superman II left off? I work here and I didn't even realize that. So, I guess I need to do some catching up...
Apparently, Superman leaves Earth to find out if there is anything left of his home planet after S2 and returns to find things a little different.
I can't wait.
You can search the web and find the original Kevin Smith Superman Lives Script about the battle with Brainiac but that was shelved after Tim Burton came on.
I can't wait for S2. The only sad news is that X3 is gonna suck now that Ratner took it on. But there is great stuff about the sabotage of the Xmen franchise on the part of Tim Rothman on Ain't it Cool news' site.
I need a job.
Oh, the homeschooling rewards thing . . . we give the kids credits were certain achievements in school, as well as some personal ones in areas that are very hard for them, so we are well acquainted with a variation of your method.
It just makes sense to us. For one, education for its own sake can sometimes be an abstract to kids and it helps if they have goals to focus towards beyond the work for work's sake - ESPECIALLY in area's where the school work is challenging them to them in a difficult, non-productive way.
Secondly, I find it bizarre that we teach kids that way in our country, seeing as adults tend to do nothing unless there is some award attached to it. Let's face it, the majority of us don't work for the sheer pleasure of it - we work for money. Money buys us stuff. I have no problem with teaching children that hard work and knowledge can bring you money because that it reality, isn't it.
Maybe there wouldn't be so many uneducated morons being churned out of the public school system if they actually rewarded kids for their efforts . . . who knows?
Post a Comment
<< Home