This is a great scene, and a lesson that most people still need to learn. Ironically, it comes from a gay man...
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Freud in Pop
Psychoanalysis is so dead. The academic community collectively scoffs at Freud’s outdated ideas, and, although they are still largely indebted to him since they use him in some bases of theories, we are so over psychoanalysis. Except those of us in literature. We seem to not be able to get past Freud and the triangle he places us in (or that our subconscious places us in?). We, the children of our mother, literary analysis, are always trying to reach an, some, any, understanding of literature, maybe better said, “existence” (whatever vagaries are implied in that) and therefore we must always pass through the law of Freud.
Anyways, it is hard to get away from this. Even if one looks at pop culture, Freud creeps in. He says that we must always live in the symbolic, and while it is not the most comfortable at times, it is the “healthiest”. Therefore, this escape from the symbolic that we are always pursuing can have dangerous consequences. Especially for women. We see women all over trying to get into the “real”, but then neatly inserted back into their role as objects in the symbolic. It’s like we subconsciously can’t get past the idea of a woman who doesn’t live under the law, under the “name of the father” (read: subjected to man’s authority), and we can’t live with the un-comfortableness of a woman living outside the symbolic.
Kate Perry is a great example of this. In two of her most popular songs she is very much pushing traditional ideas of femininity, whose “pushing-the-envelope-ness” can be attested, seeing the controversies these songs caused. She kissed a girl and she liked it. And just as she doesn’t really care if her boyfriend minds it or not, she refuses to be strung along by her hot’n’cold boyfriend. Woman power.
But, really?
So maybe it is her “real” that she wants to kiss a girl. She does it in her video for her song “I kissed a girl.” Even in an age where Bjork, Tatu, Madonna and Britney have all exploited such a move to generate huge publicity, is still a strong gesture. But at the end of the video, she suddenly wakes up, in her bed, where her boyfriend sleeps soundly as she perniciously fantasizes. In “Hot’n’cold,” bride-zillas with smeared make-up terrorize the non-committal boyfriend with bats, the image of his deserted bride haunts him as he looks for escape in raging dance clubs, she finds him in alleys with her posse, even chases after him on a bike. It would seem that finally a woman was the law that this loser could not escape, and that women might achieve the law of the “mother” through which all symbolic experience must be past. In fact, she tries to attribute feminine characteristics to the supposed purveyor of the law, to discredit his masculinity, saying that “you change your mind like a girl changes clothes.” The song becomes an attack on the stability of the “father’s authority.” Alas, with the saying of his name, non-committal man is drawn back to the pretty reality of the church in which his wedding is taking place, where the delightful scene rejoices when this women with smeared makeup is finally subjected to the slavery of marriage, subjected to living her existence under the “name of the father.”
In an almost exact duplicate, Shakira lets all her bottled up female sensuality lose in “Loba”, becoming a sexual prowler who needs to be caged up, all the while encouraging women to find the “she-wolf” in herself to then “let her out and breath.” One can understand the clamor among women for sexual equality, and one would hope that maybe in the 21st century we would have overcome medieval notions of the female lack of libido and Victorian notions of the need to repress it. Unfortunately, even in popular music videos, women who try to escape these notions are always put back into their place. Ironically, to transform into this she-wolf, Shakira has to transverse her own closet, full of the signifiers that we ascribe to traditional femininity and its link to modern consumerism: clothes. The she-wolf is in the closet, behind all those layers of ascribed femininity. Let her loose. Dance on some roof in San Francisco (coincidence that this video is filmed in the American city usually associated with sexual liberty?). But only liberate yourself to the point that, at the end of the movie, you can still slip quietly back into the bed of your sleeping masculine counterpart (lest I employ the terms boyfriend, husband, partner or fuck-buddy wrongly) without disturbing him. In other words, don’t get too far from the symbolic.
Even Lady Gaga, an artist whose supposed sexual liberation is one of her defining characteristics, falls into the trap. In the video for her song “Paparazzi,” Lady Gaga exacts revenge on the boyfriend that pushed her from the balcony, leaving her incapacitated and with the only motivation to go on her future being her revenge. As she calls the police to tell them that she killed her boyfriend, one thinks that finally we will witness the break, and the anchors of Freudianism will fall off, allowing women to finally soar to her rightful place outside the law of the father. “Lady Gaga is Back” proclaims the newspapers in her video, and after overcoming the man, and living outside the symbolic, she is at her epitome, the climax of her career.
But no. She is neatly placed back in her role when she is caught by the police and rightfully punished with a humiliating mug-shot worse than any that her feared paparazzi enemies might have ever captured of her. In fact, her popularity stems from the fact that she is caught and “We love her again” title lines show in newspapers while she is being escorted by policemen back to reality from her frolic into the “real”. Back to the symbolic, out of the real. Coming out from under the symbolic seems impossible, even more so for these women, since the “symbolic” seems to be gendered male.
The moral of the story would seem to be that women should stop trying to escape from their prescribed roles in the symbolic. You are in fact just objects and you always will be.
But then again, Freud is died and we are so over psychoanalysis. Let’s see some women throw him off and let him rest in peace, showing that you can come from out beneath the law of the father.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Living in a Polorized Society
Well, this is what happens and the things we do when we live in a polarized society.
Check this out: A women denies tricker-treaters candy for their or their parents political views. This is just wrong on so many levels. Enjoy!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27488353/
I also have some more of my personal observations on the upcoming seasonal mayhem, but those will come later.
Check this out: A women denies tricker-treaters candy for their or their parents political views. This is just wrong on so many levels. Enjoy!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27488353/
I also have some more of my personal observations on the upcoming seasonal mayhem, but those will come later.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Insert foot in mouth in 3, 2, 1...
So, I know for a long time this has been some kind of bitch session here online, and a lot of it seems to be directed against conservatives, and those of you who have known me for a while understand how my experiences at Concordia really made those fundamentalist, evangelical conservatives form the blunt end of the knife with which conservatism kills almost everything intellectual, but I must take a step back. Although I am hardly ceding to home-schooling inbreeding, fiscal adventures accountable to no one but those who are gaining, and social injustice caused by an implicit "moral and racial" superiority, I realized something.
In a study on Latino Culture (here "latino" refers to those living in the United States of hispanic origin, not just those "dirty mexicans immigrants" that I am sure some of you thought of, and I would mention here that 60% of those of Hispanic descent are actually BORN in the UNITED STATES, some of whose families HAVE LIVED HERE FOR GENERATIONS and who had the unfortunate HAPPENSTANCE OF THE BORDER BEING MOVED OVER THEM IN OUR IMPERIALISTIC ZEAL) and religion, The University of Notre Dame found surprising evidence for children of RELIGIOUS families who fare on pare with other students whose families are less religious. Religiosity in the study was defined by two indicators: how often the family attended church services (those RELIGIOUS families attended 1 a week, and those NOT-SO-RELIGIOUS families were those Easter and Christmas Christians we so disdain) and how much importance was placed on faith within the respondents' personal life.
However, students who came from a RELGIOUS background fared better on standardized tests and received higher grades in, of all academic subjects, SCIENCE.
While the study was only aimed at focusing on the LATINO youth, it is hard to swallow as is. And while maybe breaking the subject into those Catholics and Protestants who identified themselves as RELIGIOUS (side note: in another study by Notre Dame, Hispanic Catholics more identified themselves as Democrats, and those Hispanic Protestants were more comfortable identifying themselves as Republicans, no big surprise there) might enlighten us further into the effect of the family's level of CONSERVATISM on these findings, it is curious that the findings would point to this conclusion. One would think, those durn religious folk: they don't believe in evolution, they think the earth is only 4000 years old, and who knows what they think of binary fusion.
Apparently, a lot more than we think the do.
And while I can give many a reason, keep in mind, to explain what might be the main downfallings of this survey (principaly, that while Protestant education is based on more Calvinistic, Puritan and even Lutheran principles that point to education nurturing faith, an idea which has developed into the "closemindedness" through the many different periods of reformation and splitting of the American Church into numerous denominations which, by definition, requires the acceptance of certain "orthodoxies" and the denial of others, whereas many modern Catholic institutions rely heavily on the Ignatian philosophy of education which depends highly on the study of the sciences and the liberal arts, and where education is seen as a nurturing of the entire person, it follows that Hispanics, being the majority Catholic, would maybe perform better in the sciences not depending on the religiosity of their family, but rather on the simple fact the the "religion" that they chose (or that is imposed upon them) inherently gives them a higher "inclination" or at least a more open attitude towards the studying of the sciences), the findings are still interesting.
Interesting enough that, while though all the personal opinions that I bloated this blog with that seems to strongly show my opposition towards the whole conservative movement, I am admitting that maybe not all conservatives are bad. There is the foot in my mouth. I cant promise it will stay there long, because you are sure so easy to make fun of...
Point your finger and make fun of me too.
In a study on Latino Culture (here "latino" refers to those living in the United States of hispanic origin, not just those "dirty mexicans immigrants" that I am sure some of you thought of, and I would mention here that 60% of those of Hispanic descent are actually BORN in the UNITED STATES, some of whose families HAVE LIVED HERE FOR GENERATIONS and who had the unfortunate HAPPENSTANCE OF THE BORDER BEING MOVED OVER THEM IN OUR IMPERIALISTIC ZEAL) and religion, The University of Notre Dame found surprising evidence for children of RELIGIOUS families who fare on pare with other students whose families are less religious. Religiosity in the study was defined by two indicators: how often the family attended church services (those RELIGIOUS families attended 1 a week, and those NOT-SO-RELIGIOUS families were those Easter and Christmas Christians we so disdain) and how much importance was placed on faith within the respondents' personal life.
However, students who came from a RELGIOUS background fared better on standardized tests and received higher grades in, of all academic subjects, SCIENCE.
While the study was only aimed at focusing on the LATINO youth, it is hard to swallow as is. And while maybe breaking the subject into those Catholics and Protestants who identified themselves as RELIGIOUS (side note: in another study by Notre Dame, Hispanic Catholics more identified themselves as Democrats, and those Hispanic Protestants were more comfortable identifying themselves as Republicans, no big surprise there) might enlighten us further into the effect of the family's level of CONSERVATISM on these findings, it is curious that the findings would point to this conclusion. One would think, those durn religious folk: they don't believe in evolution, they think the earth is only 4000 years old, and who knows what they think of binary fusion.
Apparently, a lot more than we think the do.
And while I can give many a reason, keep in mind, to explain what might be the main downfallings of this survey (principaly, that while Protestant education is based on more Calvinistic, Puritan and even Lutheran principles that point to education nurturing faith, an idea which has developed into the "closemindedness" through the many different periods of reformation and splitting of the American Church into numerous denominations which, by definition, requires the acceptance of certain "orthodoxies" and the denial of others, whereas many modern Catholic institutions rely heavily on the Ignatian philosophy of education which depends highly on the study of the sciences and the liberal arts, and where education is seen as a nurturing of the entire person, it follows that Hispanics, being the majority Catholic, would maybe perform better in the sciences not depending on the religiosity of their family, but rather on the simple fact the the "religion" that they chose (or that is imposed upon them) inherently gives them a higher "inclination" or at least a more open attitude towards the studying of the sciences), the findings are still interesting.
Interesting enough that, while though all the personal opinions that I bloated this blog with that seems to strongly show my opposition towards the whole conservative movement, I am admitting that maybe not all conservatives are bad. There is the foot in my mouth. I cant promise it will stay there long, because you are sure so easy to make fun of...
Point your finger and make fun of me too.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The End of Greed
So, in his speech tonight, George Bush made repeated references to how a federal bailout would "open up" the financial gears that are clogged right now, and how this would allow banks to get "back on track" with their lending, making it easier once again for "average Americans" to get credit. He also talks about how this credit could then be used to "buy a car, or send your children to college." How white-picket-fence-with-a-stew-boiling-in-the-kitchen American. Only the slightest references to "excess" that in the end are really just "instances of abuse". Nothing wrong at all with the way we think. No, no, that would be unamerican of us to think critically about our culture. No talk of addressing the real problem or encouraging Americans to rethink their way of living which has gotten us into this downward spiral in the first place: greed. In fact, lets just keep encouraging it. After all, can we make any more sweepingly trite generalizations that "Democratic Capitalism is the best system every designed" (at this point I think I was looking for a gun to cap my own ass and then I realized that I am anti-gun, damn it!), and that It (with a capital "i") is what has made us the great country we are just to make us feel better about ourselves even as we lurch towards economic self destruction?
Just come out and say it. We are trying to fix the problem so that credit can keep flowing, and you can keep paying for your Hummer, the 50 gallons of gas per mile that it requires, your five bedroom house, your weekends in the Hamptons and your Rock Star Life Style. Want a new backyard gnome garden? Pass the bill. Want that new hard drive extension that serves as an internet server, plasma TV and herb grower? Lets push through this legislation. Need that frivolous crap that will eventually just end up in your basement or a thrift store? Sign this into effect.
And while I understand that entrepreneurs and business owners DO need that credit, as his righteousness mentioned, what are we going to do about John Doe who is just trying to keep up with the Joneses, and that whose struggle with the coolest, newest and most expensive has become an internalized aspect of his culture? When will we address our over-consumption and frivolousness?
I know this just seems like a ranting rage at this point, and that Chris is on his soapbox about American consumerism once again, but I feel justified. What I have been raving about for years is finally what people are starting to see as the solution. If only we thought about this three years ago, but then again, that's when our newest iPod was more important.
Just come out and say it. We are trying to fix the problem so that credit can keep flowing, and you can keep paying for your Hummer, the 50 gallons of gas per mile that it requires, your five bedroom house, your weekends in the Hamptons and your Rock Star Life Style. Want a new backyard gnome garden? Pass the bill. Want that new hard drive extension that serves as an internet server, plasma TV and herb grower? Lets push through this legislation. Need that frivolous crap that will eventually just end up in your basement or a thrift store? Sign this into effect.
And while I understand that entrepreneurs and business owners DO need that credit, as his righteousness mentioned, what are we going to do about John Doe who is just trying to keep up with the Joneses, and that whose struggle with the coolest, newest and most expensive has become an internalized aspect of his culture? When will we address our over-consumption and frivolousness?
I know this just seems like a ranting rage at this point, and that Chris is on his soapbox about American consumerism once again, but I feel justified. What I have been raving about for years is finally what people are starting to see as the solution. If only we thought about this three years ago, but then again, that's when our newest iPod was more important.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
On Becoming a Robot
So, grad school is setting in. And not in the way I expected at all. With the risk of sounding either incredibly vain, or incredibly insecure, my classes are so disappointing. I say vanity because I can think of no other word to describe the hours I pass sitting in class thinking that I already know about the topic of which the professor who is obviously significantly more educated than I am seems to endlessly droan on about (is that right to put two prepositions in succession, and nonetheless at the end of a sentence?). I say insecurity because it is the only emotion with which I can truely qualify the hours I spend in class thinking that maybe the point of the class which I claim to know so well is so subtly over my head that I am completely missing it.
Insecurity and vanity: the "median" emotion of these is emotion-less-ness, they truly cancel each other out in the mathematics of personal feelings. So, I have become a robot. I exist between not caring about my insufficiently challenging classes because I already know it and the panic that I am not gleaning everything I can from the infinite wisdom that I obviously am not capturing. Emotion-less-ness. Where is the excitement of my youthful ideals of helping break cultural perceptions, of opening the worlds eyes to horizons as of yet inexperienced, of showing the vast marvels that surround us even in our own backyard? How can I reach any of those ideals if I can't get my students to conjugate verbs correctly, let alone show them there is more to Latin America than drugs and tamales.
Where are my youthful ideals? Lost in the nothing-ness of grad school robotics. Where is the desire to make a change, when I don't care if my students don't pass a test, when I lower my standards to the normal bell curve, when I myself don't see the point of teaching something that in 2 weeks, after the chapter test, will be quickly forgotten. How can I interest others in a topic that I vainly dismiss as "already known" or subconsciously ponder as "completely foreign"?
Hearing the Dean of the Graduate School speak about how generations of knowledge are been entrusted to us to perserve and expand once was gratifying. Now it is nothing: what knowledge if I already know it (vanity), or what expansion can I offer if I never understand it (insecurity).
And the question of the hour is brought to light: between this vanity and insecurity, I must ask, "DID I MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION?" The vain side of my brain (I would say this is my right side, logical, egotistical) says, yes and keep showing those bastards how much smarter then them you are and that you wouldn't have as much time to think about this if your classes were challenging. The insecure side, by definition, says, well maybe this is wrong. Existing in the betwixt is my life.
Isolated and emotionless, routines become meaningless and life goes plowing ever on. Where I am in the happening of it all is just quite unknown, for I seem to not be able to carve out my own place, and am just dragged meaninglessly forward, towards some end that I cannot imagine. Indeed, the life of a robot.
Insecurity and vanity: the "median" emotion of these is emotion-less-ness, they truly cancel each other out in the mathematics of personal feelings. So, I have become a robot. I exist between not caring about my insufficiently challenging classes because I already know it and the panic that I am not gleaning everything I can from the infinite wisdom that I obviously am not capturing. Emotion-less-ness. Where is the excitement of my youthful ideals of helping break cultural perceptions, of opening the worlds eyes to horizons as of yet inexperienced, of showing the vast marvels that surround us even in our own backyard? How can I reach any of those ideals if I can't get my students to conjugate verbs correctly, let alone show them there is more to Latin America than drugs and tamales.
Where are my youthful ideals? Lost in the nothing-ness of grad school robotics. Where is the desire to make a change, when I don't care if my students don't pass a test, when I lower my standards to the normal bell curve, when I myself don't see the point of teaching something that in 2 weeks, after the chapter test, will be quickly forgotten. How can I interest others in a topic that I vainly dismiss as "already known" or subconsciously ponder as "completely foreign"?
Hearing the Dean of the Graduate School speak about how generations of knowledge are been entrusted to us to perserve and expand once was gratifying. Now it is nothing: what knowledge if I already know it (vanity), or what expansion can I offer if I never understand it (insecurity).
And the question of the hour is brought to light: between this vanity and insecurity, I must ask, "DID I MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION?" The vain side of my brain (I would say this is my right side, logical, egotistical) says, yes and keep showing those bastards how much smarter then them you are and that you wouldn't have as much time to think about this if your classes were challenging. The insecure side, by definition, says, well maybe this is wrong. Existing in the betwixt is my life.
Isolated and emotionless, routines become meaningless and life goes plowing ever on. Where I am in the happening of it all is just quite unknown, for I seem to not be able to carve out my own place, and am just dragged meaninglessly forward, towards some end that I cannot imagine. Indeed, the life of a robot.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Welcome back
So, yesterday was a good "Welcome Back" to the United States. One good thing and one not so good thing reflected the somewhat paradoxical opinion I have of being back in the states.
First, it was cold enough that I had to wear a sweater. Now, cold for me is anything below 75, and it was really only 55 in the morning, but that is freezing for me. It was one of those rainy drizzly, cuddle up with a cup of tea kind of days that I havent experienced in almost 4 years. So, thats exactly what I did. Came home, put on some warm pajama pants, curled up with a book (homework, not the most ideal, rainy day reading) and a cup of earl gray. It was wonderful. I know that this whole delight in coldness wont last all that long, since a nebraska winter is upon us and I will be craving anything about 30ยบ, but for now, I will take pleasure in the crisp afternoons of fall.
Second, I recieved the American Community Survey. Its like the pre-census sent out by the Census bureau, and I am "required by law" to fill it out. When I opened the 20 page survey that I hardly have time to fill out, my inner cynic asked, "hum, can't they just tap my phone lines to figure all this out? Wont my library record be illuminating enough for them?" while my good ole American decided to put up with the buracracy of my country and that even though I really dont feel like it, and sometimes wish it weren't so, I am part of the American community.
Not to mention that all these things coincide with my struggle that I feel I am going through about having left Panama. Funny that none of these regrets happened when I had two months off and had time and energy to think them through. Nope. Cultural adjustment hits you when you can least take it. Maybe thats why these two rather frivoulous happeneing stand out as poignant enough to blog about.
So, welcome back. Three months late.
First, it was cold enough that I had to wear a sweater. Now, cold for me is anything below 75, and it was really only 55 in the morning, but that is freezing for me. It was one of those rainy drizzly, cuddle up with a cup of tea kind of days that I havent experienced in almost 4 years. So, thats exactly what I did. Came home, put on some warm pajama pants, curled up with a book (homework, not the most ideal, rainy day reading) and a cup of earl gray. It was wonderful. I know that this whole delight in coldness wont last all that long, since a nebraska winter is upon us and I will be craving anything about 30ยบ, but for now, I will take pleasure in the crisp afternoons of fall.
Second, I recieved the American Community Survey. Its like the pre-census sent out by the Census bureau, and I am "required by law" to fill it out. When I opened the 20 page survey that I hardly have time to fill out, my inner cynic asked, "hum, can't they just tap my phone lines to figure all this out? Wont my library record be illuminating enough for them?" while my good ole American decided to put up with the buracracy of my country and that even though I really dont feel like it, and sometimes wish it weren't so, I am part of the American community.
Not to mention that all these things coincide with my struggle that I feel I am going through about having left Panama. Funny that none of these regrets happened when I had two months off and had time and energy to think them through. Nope. Cultural adjustment hits you when you can least take it. Maybe thats why these two rather frivoulous happeneing stand out as poignant enough to blog about.
So, welcome back. Three months late.
Monday, September 01, 2008
The Glass Cieling
It is frightening. Frightening to think that once again, Americans will be outdone by hideously obvious political maneuvering. In a move that is the epitome of the knee-jerk reaction philosophy of the republican party, McCain picks Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, to run on the GOP ticket. Its the talk of the nation. I call it reactionary because its hard to seperate such a radical choice from the words of Palin's own acceptance speech: "If Hillary can't break the glass ceiling, we republicans can" (my paraphrasing).
In other words, in a move to shatter that glass ceiling, lets pick someone without a penis to not hinder those 18 million cracks in the cieling from becoming voters for us, not considering that just any other creature without a penis will not fit the bill. I mean, becuase the dems cant do it for ya, we will. Well, sort of.
Political anylists are saying that this move heralds feminists teachings and will win over all those bitter dems and independents who are still sore from not having their Hillary, and I am sure that is what McCain in thinking in picking someone as a ticket mate with no national experience. However, if shattering the glass cieling means making Joan Cleaver the next vice president, I doubt, in terms of women's rights, that this so called shattering is what Americans are hoping for.
Unfortunately, many American's won't realize this. They will see her as the figure of triumphant American "exurbanism", as Howard Fineman puts it. They will see her as the loving mother of five, from the fringes of our cities where trimmed lawns are still valued and somehow reflect a neighborly conjuviality, where consumerism is admired if not slightly worshipped, and where the traditional family can live its life far from bustle but close enough to "catch a ballgame". They will see her as provident from a place where social conservatism is not only the norm but the expected way of life. (If you need to know my opinion of this ideologically and geographically stifilling concept, please refer to my other blogs on cookie-cutter suburban life). As Fineman puts it, in ExUrban America, Amercans can get as close to "'Leave it to Beaver'America as most middle-class folks can afford or even find." So seeing "one of their own" as it were, succeed in mainstream politics can be rather affirming and it will be comforting to know that someone like themselves is running the country. Knowing that the vice president wears her pearls and knows what a struggle it is to have dinner on the table when hubby gets home gives them some sort of validation of their own daily lifes (no offense to pearl wearers: I myself find them extremely sexy, nor those who are stay at home moms: I was raised by one).
But it would really be the case of one step forward and three steps back. More like 20 steps back. Instead of presenting a VP canidate that might proffer real change and be committed to real politics, we are thrown into the vortex of bad political maneuvering: I mean, becuase the dems cant do it for ya, we will, sort of. We will give you your woman: a woman who is firmly against abortion, and will work hard to get Roe vs. Wade overturned. All hail the downfall of even the most basic of women's right. Hows that for no more glass ceiling?
Hopefully Americans will realize all this and stick to something that will make this country better, not ask for another 4 years of crap. And after 8 years that have lead us to the position that we are in now, it is hard to think, and frightening to realize, that a small maneuver like this might sway Americans to think that another 4 years wouldn't be crap. Not saying that either candidate is the most prepared for the job, or that promises made from both sides will pull our country out of the hole we have dug ourselves into--better said, that we have been drug into-- but this knee-jerk reaction to have a female VP is more transparent than the glass ceiling it presupposes to shatter. And hopefully Americans will realize that trading a glass ceiling for a brick wall is hardly worth it.
In other words, in a move to shatter that glass ceiling, lets pick someone without a penis to not hinder those 18 million cracks in the cieling from becoming voters for us, not considering that just any other creature without a penis will not fit the bill. I mean, becuase the dems cant do it for ya, we will. Well, sort of.
Political anylists are saying that this move heralds feminists teachings and will win over all those bitter dems and independents who are still sore from not having their Hillary, and I am sure that is what McCain in thinking in picking someone as a ticket mate with no national experience. However, if shattering the glass cieling means making Joan Cleaver the next vice president, I doubt, in terms of women's rights, that this so called shattering is what Americans are hoping for.
Unfortunately, many American's won't realize this. They will see her as the figure of triumphant American "exurbanism", as Howard Fineman puts it. They will see her as the loving mother of five, from the fringes of our cities where trimmed lawns are still valued and somehow reflect a neighborly conjuviality, where consumerism is admired if not slightly worshipped, and where the traditional family can live its life far from bustle but close enough to "catch a ballgame". They will see her as provident from a place where social conservatism is not only the norm but the expected way of life. (If you need to know my opinion of this ideologically and geographically stifilling concept, please refer to my other blogs on cookie-cutter suburban life). As Fineman puts it, in ExUrban America, Amercans can get as close to "'Leave it to Beaver'America as most middle-class folks can afford or even find." So seeing "one of their own" as it were, succeed in mainstream politics can be rather affirming and it will be comforting to know that someone like themselves is running the country. Knowing that the vice president wears her pearls and knows what a struggle it is to have dinner on the table when hubby gets home gives them some sort of validation of their own daily lifes (no offense to pearl wearers: I myself find them extremely sexy, nor those who are stay at home moms: I was raised by one).
But it would really be the case of one step forward and three steps back. More like 20 steps back. Instead of presenting a VP canidate that might proffer real change and be committed to real politics, we are thrown into the vortex of bad political maneuvering: I mean, becuase the dems cant do it for ya, we will, sort of. We will give you your woman: a woman who is firmly against abortion, and will work hard to get Roe vs. Wade overturned. All hail the downfall of even the most basic of women's right. Hows that for no more glass ceiling?
Hopefully Americans will realize all this and stick to something that will make this country better, not ask for another 4 years of crap. And after 8 years that have lead us to the position that we are in now, it is hard to think, and frightening to realize, that a small maneuver like this might sway Americans to think that another 4 years wouldn't be crap. Not saying that either candidate is the most prepared for the job, or that promises made from both sides will pull our country out of the hole we have dug ourselves into--better said, that we have been drug into-- but this knee-jerk reaction to have a female VP is more transparent than the glass ceiling it presupposes to shatter. And hopefully Americans will realize that trading a glass ceiling for a brick wall is hardly worth it.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Crossing the Red Sea
Moses did it with the help of God and one bad-ass rod...methinks these are the tools necessary for the job, because I sure tried it yesterday and it did not work. That's right, I foolishly tried to make my way about downtown Lincoln yesterday when I didn't realize that the inauguration of Husker football season meant the complete shutdown of everything. But it did. Flags everywhere. Not one person who didn't have some kind of red, black or white in their clothing, on their warpainted faces, or on their big foamy hands. At 10 in the morning I was surprised to find tailgate parties going strong a few blocks from my house (mind you I live about 15 blocks from the stadium), complete with beer gardens that had their own TVs and somehow access to cable. People coming in and out of bars at 12. Everyone making some sort of pilgramage to Vine Street, and culminating the day with the reason on the insanity: Nebraska vs. Western Michigan.
I ask myself why I went out. Having parents who are both Nebraskans, I am not unaccustomed to this sort of Huskers fever. I actually knew that it would be bad. But, also being someone who doesnt really care for sports at all, I guess I was still surprised at how intense it actually was. To what degree the city (read: state, as I beleive the entire state converged on the stadium as if it were the gates to some epherial world) was devoured by red clothed addicts. Its not just a game, its "our tradition" as signs throughout the city claimed. And an inevitable part of life in Nebraska, becuase even the cash register looked at you and instead of saying having a nice day, said, "Have a good time at the game" like it was some presumption that everyone she talked to was going to the game. And while I was questioning who Bo Pelini is, heaven-sent brochures were passed around claiming "the start of a new era" under the new coach, Tom Osborne's heir and savior to the Husker Nation. I am not surprised if at the game the spectators actually got down on their knees, facing the direction of their Mecca, Tom Osborne's office, and observed a moment of silence in commeration of the football god manifested on earth.
And I would bring up the seeming contradiction that it is the football team that is most recognized at our university, which to me is the embodiment of contradiction since the general idea of football (brutes attacking each other) goes against the very idea of a liberal education, but that would be moot. The whole football academic debtate will continue to be a contradiction and me raging about it will never change anything: the university needs it money, the NFL new recruits, and the American public their entertainment manifested in the form of violence. It will always be a contradiction that football players will get their books for free under their scholarships, although it is unlikely that they will read those books, and those who have comitted their lives to the study of said books and along with it have taken upon themselves the shackles of voluntary poverty (aka grad students) are expected to buy the books themselves with the little money with which they are compensated, so why rage about it here? Like I said, moot.
I dont even know who won the game, but will hear echoing in my head forever, "Go Big Red!"
I ask myself why I went out. Having parents who are both Nebraskans, I am not unaccustomed to this sort of Huskers fever. I actually knew that it would be bad. But, also being someone who doesnt really care for sports at all, I guess I was still surprised at how intense it actually was. To what degree the city (read: state, as I beleive the entire state converged on the stadium as if it were the gates to some epherial world) was devoured by red clothed addicts. Its not just a game, its "our tradition" as signs throughout the city claimed. And an inevitable part of life in Nebraska, becuase even the cash register looked at you and instead of saying having a nice day, said, "Have a good time at the game" like it was some presumption that everyone she talked to was going to the game. And while I was questioning who Bo Pelini is, heaven-sent brochures were passed around claiming "the start of a new era" under the new coach, Tom Osborne's heir and savior to the Husker Nation. I am not surprised if at the game the spectators actually got down on their knees, facing the direction of their Mecca, Tom Osborne's office, and observed a moment of silence in commeration of the football god manifested on earth.
And I would bring up the seeming contradiction that it is the football team that is most recognized at our university, which to me is the embodiment of contradiction since the general idea of football (brutes attacking each other) goes against the very idea of a liberal education, but that would be moot. The whole football academic debtate will continue to be a contradiction and me raging about it will never change anything: the university needs it money, the NFL new recruits, and the American public their entertainment manifested in the form of violence. It will always be a contradiction that football players will get their books for free under their scholarships, although it is unlikely that they will read those books, and those who have comitted their lives to the study of said books and along with it have taken upon themselves the shackles of voluntary poverty (aka grad students) are expected to buy the books themselves with the little money with which they are compensated, so why rage about it here? Like I said, moot.
I dont even know who won the game, but will hear echoing in my head forever, "Go Big Red!"
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
