First off, I’m not sexist. If I were sexist, I’d be objectifying women left and right. I’d be hootin’ and hollerin’ at women on the street, I’d be going to strip clubs and fashion shows and I’d certainly be trying my hardest to sleep with every woman I can so that I can dump them afterwards. Because, after all, aren’t women only good for one thing? [sarcasm]
Sure, I invite the typical female Tom Lykis listener to flash me on the 5 Freeway. What’s wrong with that? There are women out there that want to do it and there are men out there who want to see it. Does that hurt anyone? Does that demean anyone? No. I don’t think so. Of course, she disagrees.
Let’s focus on the points of the typical feminist, shall we?
Women are objects, mainly sexual in nature. They are treated unfairly in society. They are tools men use to get off and get far. Women should be equal in the eyes of men and their oppression should be lifted, as it is barbaric and so 17th century.
Surely, it’s more complicated than that. But, you get the idea, right?
Let’s start with how women become objects from childhood. As girls, they are told to be subservient, demure and “lady-like.” Images of frilly dresses, curly hair and Barbie dolls come to mind. As they grow older, the messages given to them are of servants to men, servants to sex and servants to fashion, make-up and looking like the aforementioned Barbie doll. It is well known that images in today’s media perpetuate the stereotype that women must look gaunt or emaciated, their skin perfect and their eyes doe-like. But, I’ll get to that later. For now, we know that women are brought up to believe that they are objects, either subliminally or directly.
They’re also brought up to take advantage of men. How? Women, for the longest time have been encouraged to look for successful men to marry. Why? Traditionally, men were the breadwinners in the home and women were the housewives. So, this idea has been passed down through the decades. It’s the American Way™. It is refreshing to learn that this trend is decreasing as we see more and more women going to college and getting their educations. In fact, more women are attending college than men. So, women are beginning to empower themselves. So, the roles will eventually reverse where the woman becomes the breadwinner and the man will stay home with the kids, if there are any kids at all.
So, why is it that women are treated so unfairly? Why is it that they’re simply looked at as objects of pleasure or whatever it is feminists claim? Well, first and foremost, it’s engrained in our society. Sure, we have the media. Television, radio and print ads continue to perpetuate the notion that women equate sex. And sex sells. But where did it start? It started with our religious texts and ideals. Surely, it doesn’t say directly in the bible that women are to be used as sex toys but it does blame women for every sin we have. Adam and Eve anyone? If it weren’t for that pesky woman eating from the Tree of Knowledge, we’d all be dancing around, naked, in the Garden of Eden (insert grandiose sigh for effect). It also states that women are second-class citizens, barely human and not in any way equal to men. Seeing that a large population of the planet is a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions, you know the view of women isn’t going to of equality. Thankfully, we live in a society that isn’t as backwards as say, Saudi Arabia (where women can’t drive, can’t show their faces and can’t do shit unless it’s in private and, even then, it may be against the law). Of course, this doesn’t explain away places like India, China, Japan and other Asian countries where, initially, the Judeo-Christian and Muslim ideals didn’t flourish, and still don’t (except India) but I think those societies saw women as inferior simply because women aren’t as strong as men, aren’t as big as men and didn’t (or couldn’t) do the work men did. We see this in nature as well, where in most species males dominate the pack, they hunt and they mate with the female of their choice and the female is left to raise the offspring.. on her own. But, that’s beyond the scope of this rant. So, I digress.
So, I touched on media and advertising. Yes, sex and thus sexism is still prevalent in today’s society. But is that the cause of sexism? We see rappers calling women “ho’s” and “bitches.” Yes, this is wrong. But who exactly is influencing whom? See, back in the early 20th century, advertising was all keen in just showing the products themselves. But, when advertisers realized that it wasn’t working anymore they began to use women in advertising. Why? Because everyone likes to look at women. Men like to look at women and, yes, so do women. I’m sure it was innocuous at first but as time went by, it became more and more sexual in nature. But why is this so? Was there sexism before the early 20th century? You betcha there was. So is advertising to blame for causing sexism? No. Well, how about rap music? Surely, the name-calling, the presentation of women in the videos and whatnot surely cause sexism today. Sure it does, but was there sexism before rap music and videos? You betcha. See, society was already sexist. Adverts and rap music and movies and television are reflecting that sexism. Unfortunately, it’s a vicious circle. Society gets it from the images they see around them and the images around them continually reflect what is seen in society. Somewhere, there has to be a break in the circle. It’s happening. More and more advertisers are using less and less sex in their ads. And women's groups and educational facilities are offering education to combat it. It’s a slow process but it’s happening. They understand that sex may sell, but it also damages.
So, is it wrong that a woman decides she wants to be a prostitute, a pornographer or a slut? After all, the message they’re given from the time they’re young to the time they’re adults is – your value simply lies in your sex. You are a woman, we only want your tits and ass.
No. It is not wrong. Because it’s a choice. (Yes, here we go again). Yes, maybe 30, 40, 50 or a 100 years ago, these choices would or could have been forced upon women. But today, there is a shift. More and more women are becoming educated, more and more women are becoming leaders and more and more women are becoming empowered. They have choices now. If they choose to be a prostitute, that is out of their own volition. If they wish to do porn, that is their choice. For whatever reason they decided to do it, it’s their choice. Are they demeaning themselves? No. Are they demeaning other women? No, because they have choices. If they choose to put themselves in a position that allows them to be objectified, that is their choice to make. Are they perpetuating sexism? Possibly, but for them it’s empowering as they are doing it on their own terms. And to say those choices are made out of ignorance and misinformation is false (and, believe it or not, there are feminists out there who believe that porn is okay because the women are taking control of their own bodies). In these times, with religious groups, women’s organizations and education, there are many outlets women can go to for information. These organizations GO to the women in need and make them understand what they’re doing. So when you ask, “well, what about the women who come from poor, troubled homes who just don’t know any better – who DON’T have a choice?” What about them? There are people out there seeking to give them help and an education. If not, that information is out there for them to be had. It’s also about personal responsibility. I had brought up a point that I’m the way that I am because I was brought up a certain way. The response was that once you know where the source of your behavior lies, you have a personal responsibility to either change it or live with it. What, does personal responsibility become waived with women who know nothing better, or that, because of their childhoods, they are exempt from personal responsibility? And, if in their minds they know it’s wrong on some level, don’t they have a responsibility to themselves, as women, to change it?
I am writing this in an angered state of mind. My thoughts are not focused and my points are probably shallow. There’s more to it than the above and I know it needs some work, I’m sure. But, I don’t think I’m sexist. Sure, I enjoy looking at beautiful women. I enjoy looking at parts of women. I enjoy the company of women. I do not, however, look at them and think that they’re only good for one thing, as Tom Lykis preaches. Behind those made-up faces, clouds of Bath and Bodyworks products and stylish clothes are people. They have thoughts, feelings, aspirations and desires. It’s unfortunate, though, that they have to take so many steps for us guys to notice them. It’s only because both men and women were brought up to behave that way.
Yes, I am dating a woman I think is hot. I am physically attracted to her. But, not for the reasons a sexist man would be. Honestly, I don’t think a sexist man would be in any way attracted to her – she is the epitome of anti-glamour, anti-makeup, anti-fashion (though she has succumbed to some of society’s nasty habits). She wears the same plain shirts, the same style jeans. And she wears sandals all the time. But why am I physically attracted to her? She has traits I’m attracted to. But she also has a quirky smile I adore. Her eyes are wide and engaging. Her hair is simple. She is tall and yes, she does have a nice ass. But when I got to know her, I became even more attracted to her. So much so that it’s sometimes overwhelming. She’s intelligent, witty, funny, sweet, thoughtful, caring and is just tack-sharp. I just adore her.
So, by the time she gets to this point (because I know she’ll be reading), she’ll be seething because I know she’ll think I just don’t get it or that I’m wrong somehow. But, honestly, are you right? Will your opinions and ideals solve the problems of women? To say what they do is wrong or that they know not what they do – is that okay? Because once you get into that territory, doesn’t that just become another form of oppression itself, to instill your values over theirs?
Oh, and this just in -- I was looking over at Postsecret.com where I found these two postcards, sent in by other readers of the blog.. They just struck me as I was writing this entry. (Sorry that I'm violating PostSecret's rules of only posting one (1) postcard to advertise that site.. but I really liked these two. I hope they understand)
Posts
2 comments:
In the spirit of sporting debate, I’ll respond. But let’s have a look at the specific accusations you’ve made about me personally--so we can set the record straight. Here’s a good quote: “I was accused of being sexist because I happen to turn on my headlights during the hours that Tom Lykis broadcasts on Fridays because that’s when his “Flash Friday’s” shows air. During the summer, Mr. Lykis encourages women to show their breasts to male listeners who have their headlights on during the commute home, to show their support for him. I had mentioned this to the woman I’m seeing and she immediately branded me a sexist. Along with her name-calling and uncontrollable anger, she went off on me that I follow the teachings of Mr. Lykis and that I’m just this sheep who demeans women by asking them to further perpetuate the role of them being sex objects.” First, let’s consider the refreshing possibility that objectifying women does not demean them. Incidentally, I wouldn’t condemn either women or men for objectifying themselves should they do so. Despite the education you claim is available to all and sundry, self-objectification still happens most generally out of ignorance, because, as you point out, the media still bombards us with images that present women, and now men, as sexualized objects. Education is harder to get our heads around than images--and it’s very hard to decode the cultural values embedded in “entertainment” without specific tools.
So what does objectification do if not attempt to demean the object? While I won’t argue with the academics, who rightly point to objectification of the other as the historical basis for all manner of oppression (e.g., once Native Americans were objectified as “ignorant savages,” it was so much easier to justify robbing them of land), I’m looking at another aspect of it here. What objectifying women does is simply this: it codifies and reinforces a very specific kind of sexualization--that which demands that a woman make herself both sexually attractive and accessible/available. (Of course, there are degrees of accessibility--it can range from the pleasure “accessed” simply by viewing a woman who’s gone to the trouble of making herself look “sexy” according to the general standard, to the pleasure of purchased sexual services). There’s also a very codified power dynamic that goes along with this mechanics of sexuality. I call it mechanized because its rules are so rigid that the expression of sexuality it produces can be likened to a porn loop. Man requests woman passing by to expose her breasts, woman complies, man gets off. Quite a scenario.
Perhaps the power play here is less obvious than what happens with what we can call the “pay-per-sexual arousal” approach. Let’s say a man or woman pays for some degree of access--ranging from mags to porn to prostitution--to a certain set of behavior and body presentations that are commonly regarded as sexy in our culture. The sex worker in the given transaction performs sexuality according to prescribed rules of sexual expression. Gratification or arousal ensues (or doesn’t). Game over until next sexual craving occurs. What is critical to note here is that the power is in the hands of the purchaser, who regulates the transaction. The sexual service rendered is one which unquestioningly conforms to pre-existing standards of what is supposed to arouse and gratify and in any case is subject to the purchaser’s fancy. The power of money defines the service or product. There’s no creativity on the part of the service-provider here. Nor are his or her wishes of any particular interest to the buyer who wants to get off.
Now, why would women do this for free, you ask, as when they flash their breasts simply in support of Tom? And isn’t doing this for free a clear indicator that they aren’t in the money/power feedback loop described above? It would certainly seem thus. This is where people like Tom could use a little scrutiny because of their views on women. I’ll quote you on Tom’s belief that women are gold-diggers: “They’re also brought up to take advantage of men.” (And here’s a brief digression on the historical “advantage” of women who marry men. When have men sought the position of housewife, given that through much of history the term meant little more than domestic servant? Let’s not forget that the feminist revolution of the 60s and 70s was a direct product of the disgruntlement experienced by the perfect housewives of the 40s and 50s--thank God for them--who found that they weren’t quite getting such a good deal by marrying “providers”! Sorry, friend, but despite your claims to the contrary, your words show that you’ve absorbed enough of what we can affectionately call Tom-speak to be able to regurgitate it without recognizing its source).
Back to the point. Without having listened to his show frequently enough to say this for certain, I’d still be willing to wager a tidy sum that getting women to do things like bare their breasts to random strangers for free is one of Tom’s personal goals. He gets off on the idea that he’s encouraging men to screw women over, quite literally. Why? Maybe because he feels he’s been burned by money-grubbing women. Bad pre-nups, perhaps. Who knows and who cares? But there’s a cultural phenomenon attached to the concept of goading, taunting, baiting and/or otherwise signaling women to sexualize themselves for the viewing pleasure of men. It’s not unique to Tom--he surely didn’t come up with the idea. His reductionist belief that women want men for status and money while men want women for sex leads him to say, hey, let’s give men a heads-up on this so that we can manipulate women into sex without offering status in return before women can manipulate us into offering money and status--which, presumably, they’ll take, and then promptly cheat on us with our buddies. Or some such paranoid line of reasoning. I’m not going to bother dissecting Tom’s embittered paranoia here. Simply put, the act of getting women to perform sexual acts or be otherwise sexually provocative for nothing in return involves power, or makes certain men feel that they have attained a kind of power. From the other perspective, simply getting someone to perform sexual rituals can also be seen as a power play that can produce erotic pleasure, regardless of whether or not we return the sexual favor by offering gifts, money, marriage, or whatever else. The link between power plays and erotic pleasure is fairly well established in our culture, as Abu Ghraib brought home to us so vibrantly.
What kinds of power are exerted to get girls to “go wild,” for instance? Does the power of celebrity turn on the girls? Do the boys who watch the girls obeying orders to perform sexual acts feel vicariously as though they’d exerted this power? What kind of a turn on is this? For the girls, is it the lure of obtaining merchandise or momentary celebrity? Heck, let’s not forget the mere pleasure of the act itself, though interviewers of girls who have gone wild have discovered that the girls don’t necessarily enjoy the shows they put on for their avid fans--see Arielle Levy again on this in her book _Female Chauvinists: The Rise of Raunch Culture_. So what kinds of pleasure do observers feel when they see women agree to requests to “go wild”? And why don’t men “go wild” at the behest of women so very often? Would they perhaps feel humiliated or less “manly” were they to accede to requests to display their sexual availability, receptivity, etc.? And since we’re on the subject, let’s be more specific. Why would many straight men over thirty feel uncomfortable at the thought of being a sex-worker of some kind, be it a boy gone wild, a stripper, or a porn star, even if they had the body for the job? Here’s a wild speculation--I’d say it may well be because they’d feel vulnerable and disempowered, at the mercy of those who would objectify them. I qualify with the words, “over thirty,” for the obvious reason--men and boys are indeed being drawn into the sex industry alongside women. It’s becoming a hell of a lot easier for them to do to their bodies precisely what women do to theirs, and for very similar reasons. However, it’s still a lot easier for a woman who’s already grown up accustomed to the notion that she’s supposed to show off her body (which she’s also worked at to make sexy-looking) to get into the sex-work industry than it is for a man, who, if he were going to do sex-work of any kind (for free or not), would, in any case, have to struggle against standards of masculinity that demand that he be “in control,” emotionally unexpressive (let’s not forget that most sexual expression captured in porn-like settings demands that women and sometimes gay men be very expressive. Men may need to come, but women are called upon to demonstrate their pleasure, their loss of self-control, etc., etc.), as well as tough and able to take pain without flinching. Heads-up to enterprising women: this last criterion makes men ideal candidates for humili-porn. Exploit this niche market now…
Bottom line, then. In our global culture today, to get someone to perform certain behaviors marked or codified as sexual is to exert power. It is a form of domination--at least, we feel that we are in a position of power or domination in these circumstances. As noted above, anyone who has seen photos from Abu Ghraib knows that pleasure is connected rather closely with domination in our culture.
To reiterate the point made initially, then, regardless of the object-making process that dominators try to enact for their own sense of pleasure/power, the people involved are not demeaned, unless, of course, they feel that they are. This is not to say that they aren’t oppressed in one form or another. Here’s where the question of free choice comes in. With slavery and colonization, it’s easy to spot the oppressors because they’re the ones cracking the whip. Oppression gets a bit more subtle when it morphs from the whip into ideology, in this case, the ideology of doing what it takes to please men, whether it be dressing, sculpting one’s body, and behaving in certain codified, tiresomely familiar ways, or not.
Much has been written on how we adopt ideologies into our lives, how we are interpellated into them, and how we may subvert them. What you allude to in your discussion of changes in global culture in the twentieth century and earlier are the changes in the way power is exerted. As our constitutions have been amended to include more rights for all people, regardless of color, gender, corporate status, etc., we’ve moved more or less away from the position where it was okay to abuse certain groups of people simply because of their status as other. Also, the American brand of capitalism combined with a federalist republican form of democracy allowed for the emergence of a middle class with enough purchasing power to educate far more of its kids than ever before in history--girls and boys--and well enough so they could all (or many of them) jump on the capitalist treadmill. I’m simplifying because I don’t want to get the Marxist lineup of scholars out now and start quoting, but here’s how ideology interpellates us under capitalism today. We grow up surrounded by cultural standard-bearers--from books to television, movies, religion (disseminated often via parental indoctrination) and most obviously, advertising--which explain to us what it means to be successful as a human being. Some of these models are more subtly propagated than through bald-faced advertising, where the product is clearly labeled, though we’ve all noticed how advertising has cottoned on to the notion that the best way to sell product is to sell values and emotional packages. The product is now tucking itself coyly behind tropical fantasies of ecstasy and power. There’s not a single standard--not even the one that calls for “rugged individualism”--which hasn’t been co-opted by one industry or another to sell a product, be it a jeep or shaving cream.
The end-goal? Because these standards are attached to products and services that purport to deliver success to us, what happens in capitalism is that we put our noses to the grindstone so that we can give ourselves access to the products that will deliver our values to us. Beauty is something we need to work for, quite literally, since makeup and implants cost money. So does the gym we go to to maintain the figure deemed appropriately sexy, and so does the cute car with the fancy paint job--the one that we’re told attracts sexy women and arouses the competitive spirit of men. Oh, wait, we’re not just told this--it actually does this, and the pleasure we get from showing up guys who can’t quite race us and from women who might be sufficiently impressed by our sportiness as to show us their breasts is a real one. Worth the cost, no doubt. So what if business owners naturally chuckle at this on their way to the bank? Where’s the problem, you ask? This is simply capitalism at work, no? We have the choice whether or not to buy a fancy car or fancy implants. Capitalism offers us nothing if not choices. Turn on the television and there are hundreds of options. Go to a market and there are thousands of products, each with its own unique brand, offering its own microcosm of value--Tony the Tiger, let’s say, if you’re a little kid who wants a fantasy along with your breakfast cereal. Tiger Woods-sponsored timepieces if you’re a bit older and want a watch endorsed by a major sports figure. Purchasing power itself is branded with an aura which hints to us that every time we make a purchase we are actually buying our way to greater freedom. What gets shunted to the side in the glory of the transaction and the afterglow of its side-effects (e.g., flaunting the watch or the cereal-box toy or the body parts or the car to awed friends and strangers) is that much of what we buy is controlled by a relatively small number of companies with “diversified” product lines, and that each industry follows a rigid set of standards. Sure, there are evils such as price-fixing (anyone notice the recent Supreme Court ruling that knocked out an early twentieth ruling barring price floors?) but worse yet, these same companies are at great pains to influence government, from environmental regulations to media regulations, allowing, in the latter case, for an alarming rate of consolidation, so that most major media outlets are owned by a small number of companies who (and I say “who” because we all know that companies are people too, and certainly have more rights) cater to their advertisers who sell products remarkably similar to the entertainment provided by the advertising. Boundaries between advertising and entertainment continue to blur.
This is not a new set of ideas. Lincoln famously trembled at the thought of the devastating effects of corporations on freedom, and at the risk of being tedious, I don’t mind quoting him:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
“Working on the prejudices of the people” is a condensed, pithy remark. Again, you suggest this in your discussion of advertising.
Here’s how power works now--or, to be a little more accurate, here’s one form of it. Many have noted American apathy. So long as we’re not directly affected by injustice, we couldn’t care less. So what if a respected law professor can’t take a job at UCI, deep in the heart of Californian Republicanland, because he exposed himself as a liberal in a political editorial? (This just in--they've offered him the job again.) Our freedom to buy a Big Mac has not been impeded even slightly as a result of this. So long as we can satisfy our personal cravings, we feel that we’re doing okay--never mind that the route to these cravings has been subtly paved for us by long-standing corporate structures of power. We are not oppressed, we claim, because we have so many choices. We make the decision to join the porn industry or our favorite law firm, depending on our ethical standards and, very likely, our educational background and the love and encouragement we received or didn’t receive as children.
Fine. There’s no disputing our free choice to watch channel 4 or channel 2 or to buy a Ford rather than a Toyota, if we have the cash or the financing for it. Most people are only vaguely uncomfortable with the way other, rather more important choices are in danger of being cut off for us. We feel a twinge, a little irritation, and move on. For those of us who’ve taken advantage of the fact that education can give us a little breathing room, a little space where we can take a critical perspective on the cultural values we are inundated with, it’s possible to use that vantage to analyze not only who’s offering us what choices but also what their larger motives might be. Plus we can disengage (fully or more or less) from (some or many of) the feedback loops of work/money/power/pleasure that we despise most. Here’s your take on what’s happening now with advertisement. I’ll quote you at length because the line of reasoning is interesting.
“See, society was already sexist. Adverts and rap music and movies and television are reflecting that sexism. Unfortunately, it’s a vicious circle. Society gets it from the images they see around them and the images around them continually reflect what is seen in society. Somewhere, there has to be a break in the circle. It’s happening. More and more advertisers are using less and less sex in their ads. And women's groups and educational facilities are offering education to combat it. It’s a slow process but it’s happening. They understand that sex may sell, but it also damages.
So, is it wrong that a woman decides she wants to be a prostitute, a pornographer or a slut? After all, the message they’re given from the time they’re young to the time they’re adults is – your value simply lies in your sex. You are a woman, we only want your tits and ass.
No. It is not wrong. Because it’s a choice. (Yes, here we go again). Yes, maybe 30, 40, 50 or a 100 years ago, these choices would or could have been forced upon women. But today, there is a shift. More and more women are becoming educated, more and more women are becoming leaders and more and more women are becoming empowered. They have choices now. If they choose to be a prostitute, that is out of their own volition. If they wish to do porn, that is their choice. For whatever reason they decided to do it, it’s their choice. Are they demeaning themselves? No. Are they demeaning other women? No, because they have choices. If they choose to put themselves in a position that allows them to be objectified, that is their choice to make. Are they perpetuating sexism? Possibly, but for them it’s empowering as they are doing it on their own terms. And to say those choices are made out of ignorance and misinformation is false (and, believe it or not, there are feminists out there who believe that porn is okay because the women are taking control of their own bodies). In these times, with religious groups, women’s organizations and education, there are many outlets women can go to for information. These organizations GO to the women in need and make them understand what they’re doing. So when you ask, “well, what about the women who come from poor, troubled homes who just don’t know any better – who DON’T have a choice?” What about them? There are people out there seeking to give them help and an education. If not, that information is out there for them to be had. It’s also about personal responsibility. I had brought up a point that I’m the way that I am because I was brought up a certain way. The response was that once you know where the source of your behavior lies, you have a personal responsibility to either change it or live with it. What, does personal responsibility become waived with women who know nothing better, or that, because of their childhoods, they are exempt from personal responsibility? And, if in their minds they know it’s wrong on some level, don’t they have a responsibility to themselves, as women, to change it?”
A noteworthy point: you suggest initially that sex “damages” without discussing how it does this or what might be wrong with it--it would be useful if you could clarify your position on that. But the larger issue here of trends in advertising doesn’t address what, for lack of a better term, we may as well call “advertainment”--the fact that so much of what we see on television and even read in our books and magazines comes packaged with subtle calls for us to purchase products and services, very many of which are designed merely to coat or resurface us. Polishing products. I equate a fancy car with a facial--both offer us polished exteriors designed to make us sexually attractive to others. They may offer us a sense of power as well. I cannot begin to express how disgusted I am by pulp writers today who are willing to put product placements for cars and clothes (among other things) in the trash they try to pass off as readable fiction. But it’s interesting that you suggest that advertisers are backing off from the tactics of the past. Without being particularly well exposed to some of the most expensive advertising around these days, I’d still say that what’s actually happening is that it’s going undercover, hiding behind the language of emotion now offered on shampoo bottles that claim to wash our spirits as well as our hair, while giving us the fantasy of an exotic eco-tour deep into the heart of the Brazilian rainforest, where rare but sustainably harvested plant species are grown not just to replace the moisture in our hair but also to help otherwise poor natives live whole, happy lives as they supply us with product. Imagine. And this is just one example. It’s not particularly suited to the subject at hand but I think it makes the point aptly enough.
Getting back to it, the subject of how education works for us today and who’s out there knocking at our doors trying to educate us or “women in need” so that they “understand what they’re doing” if they choose porn or prostitution for their careers, I think it’s a little naïve to suggest that education seeks out students. People need to want to learn, and when it comes to making money, that’s usually when people stop studying and start working. Money under capitalism is self-propagating. It seeks to make more of itself and we are its tools. In the market system learning is discouraged unless it involves learning to do what it takes to make more money. Yes, absolutely, no sane person over the age of eighteen is exempt from personal responsibility for their career choices or sexual expression. It’s up to them to decide what to do for their sustenance based on the best of their abilities and in accordance with their desires and creative aspirations. Just as I wouldn’t condemn them for choosing the sex industry, I don’t condemn women or men for exploring and enjoying the tedious pre-set sexual roles endorsed by the sex and “advertainment” industries--with the important exception that if real torture is involved, it’s probably a bad thing. If people get off on having their balls nailed to step-ladders, okay, but I say they need help. If they get off on the tamer stuff of boys and girls gone wild, well, there’s no denying that their pleasure is real. If you get off on getting girls to go wild for you--tucked behind the largely symbolic gesture of headlights turned on in honor of Tom, so be it. I’ve got an issue with it, you could say. I hope I’ve explained it sufficiently, and though I could certainly say more, I’ll stop here.
But I will address your last two questions briefly: “To say what they do is wrong or that they know not what they do – is that okay? Because once you get into that territory, doesn’t that just become another form of oppression itself, to instill your values over theirs?”
Who’s talking about instilling my values over theirs? I just don’t mind spreading the good word. What they do with it is their own business. I’m simply putting it out there, and I’ll be packaging it in palatable form. Where do you get the notion that pressing an opinion, selling it or otherwise presenting it is a form of oppression rather than expression? It would seem by your remarks that you actually support my position on advertising--that it truly can work as a form of oppression because it immerses us in ideology, even if it’s the apparently harmless little old ideology of doing whatever it takes to look good.
Heck, I’ll be a lot more straightforward than most advertising today.
I have a response but it still needs formatting and I don't have the time to do that at the moment but.. it'll be a new entry.
Post a Comment