The Forum > Article Comments > Going Gaga over raunch dressed up as liberation > Comments
Going Gaga over raunch dressed up as liberation : Comments
By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 19/3/2010Lady Gaga isn't pushing boundaries. She's a conformist contributing to a distorted, one-dimensional cultural script.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by Alyssa KT, Friday, 19 March 2010 10:37:01 AM
| |
Over educated cultural studies twaddle from someone who is a forerunner of the anti-abortion lobby. Get real. It's a video clip. She's trying to sell music. Since when did rock & roll give a fat rats about sexual conformity? Since when did The Australian start publishing morality pieces? Geez, they'll be inundated.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 19 March 2010 10:43:37 AM
| |
'But the clip endorses and entrenches some of the worst stereotypes about women and sexuality. '
Worst according to you. Plenty of other young people are embracing this view of women and sexuality, because they like it. It's their culture, they own it. I always wonder what a world would look like if stereotypes were banned. A stereotype isn't offensive, it's a shorthand way of telling a story. If the world did look like the prude-amada fantasy of your ideals, that would be the stereotype. 'radical' people would be upset at the stereotype religious chaste good girls. But, I'm afraid you'll just have to keep putting up with the real world. 'more about profit than art' No sh1t sherlock. What was it I was saying about the real world? Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 19 March 2010 12:04:06 PM
| |
MTR is correct in so far as Lady G is not original - give me Grace Jones ANY day.
However, if she really wanted to whinge about conformist and sexist music videos, what is wrong with heavy metal? For Christ's sake? At least pick valid targets - heavy metal has been around for yonks and will (I am sure) continue to enrapture teenage boys into the future, whereas Lady GaGa, by this time next year, will be Lady GoneGone. Awful pun, I know - but I don't care. Posted by Severin, Friday, 19 March 2010 1:10:35 PM
| |
Headline, headline, read all about it.
"Old fogey says yoof music corrupts" Headline, headline, read all about it. "Old fogey says yoof music is rubbish" Headline, headline, read all about it. "Old fogey says yoof doesn't know what's good for it" Do you think maybe MTR is being humorous? And this really is a send-up of everything an old fogey might drag out of the kitbag when discussing today's yoof? I don't think she missed one single stereotype or cliché Masterful. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 March 2010 1:28:51 PM
| |
Pericles
:D Posted by Severin, Friday, 19 March 2010 1:46:50 PM
| |
I think she should replace Deveny as a main speaker at the next earth worsippers summit. Her morality would fit well with the amoral atheist.
Posted by runner, Friday, 19 March 2010 4:03:39 PM
| |
Unlike your mythical "god" runner, the earth actually exists. Whether people worship it or not is not your business.
If someone trys to burn down your house and you object, by your logic, you would be a "house worshiper". Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 19 March 2010 8:46:06 PM
| |
This crap stopped being non-conformist a long time ago. It is equally hard to see it as individual when all female popstars adopt quite similar personas with the same rauchy sexuality. Lady Gaga is doing exactly what any record company would tell her to do.
Posted by benk, Friday, 19 March 2010 9:59:44 PM
| |
It is a very sad to see the way this author is demeaned for simply standing up against a culture in which women apparently do not have a hope of being thought of as anything other than a source of sexual gratification, first and foremost.
What is so wrong about asking that women be accorded dignity and respect? This sort of behaviour is not characteristic of a civilisation on the rise but on the contrary a civilisation that has lost its way. People have got to starting thinking seriously about the potential harm to fellow human beings and society. Posted by grateful, Saturday, 20 March 2010 12:00:04 AM
| |
Agree with the article, Benk and Grateful.
All of this was said and done some years back when Madonna was doing the same sort of thing. The press hailed her as striking a note for women's independence etc etc. Gaga is just the newest (younger) version of the same old; same old. I agree with Severin that she'll be Gone-gone in due course - but there'll probably be another idiot to take her place. Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 20 March 2010 12:29:23 AM
| |
Rusty
'If someone trys to burn down your house and you object, by your logic, you would be a "house worshiper".' By your logic it is only your opinion that burning ones house down is wrong. The again your logic fails miserably. Posted by runner, Saturday, 20 March 2010 12:31:38 AM
| |
My daughter and all her friends just love Lady Gaga.
I think she has a fantastic voice, with admittedly a somewhat eccentric dress sense. I predict she will be around for quite awhile, maybe reinventing herself several times like Kylie and Madonna have done. Sex sells, just like it always has done. Most teenagers love Lady Gaga, just like most teenagers loved Elvis Presley when he came on stage and presented his gyrating pelvis for all to admire! Benk, men also use the 'raunchy sexuality' you mentioned about women. I remember watching Jim Morrison, Michael Hutchence and Kurt Cobain's overt sexuality on stage, and enjoying it immensely! Come on guys, this sort of thing has been around since the first cave man learnt to beat a stick together rhythmically, and all the young cave girls swooned! Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 20 March 2010 1:25:51 AM
| |
It wouldn't be wrong for you to burn your own down, runner.
It would be wrong for you to burn down one that others lived in. Other people live on earth, and are concerned for it's welfare. Since you have no idea what that might constitute, insulting people who are nonetheless concerned and trying is just dumb. Do keep on making fundies look like twits runner. An army of atheists could not harm public perception of biblical literalism as much as you do daily. Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Saturday, 20 March 2010 11:36:54 AM
| |
From Elvis to this ga ga lady it has been a sad progression of commercialising sex. Every year it gets worse. Whats next a tit out here and there. A flash of pubes. Oops sorry I forgot they dont have them any more do they. A bit of knob sticking out the top of the already low slung pants.
This sexualisation arms race will only end badly for all. Along with the new death porn as witnessed on froggy tv recently and the pleasure many seem to get from watching others misfortune, society is becoming more and more debauched and decadent and it wont be long before we have live televised executions, extreme fighting will include "to the death" and kids will participate in orgys as a teen right of passage. And people wonder why I am becoming a hermit. LOL Posted by mikk, Saturday, 20 March 2010 11:47:02 AM
| |
Rusty
'It would be wrong for you to burn down one that others lived in.' Good to see you actually do believe in absolutes Rusty despite the pseudo science you hide behind. Posted by runner, Saturday, 20 March 2010 3:47:18 PM
| |
Actually no, runner.
A straw poll of people who live in houses shows that those who have invested effort to build or buy their houses don't like vandals. People who have deliberately not so invested in their yurts and hogans fret less. Ethical behaviour stems from making an estimation of what other people reactions might be, usually taking one's own reaction as a useful data point. Morals is institutionally enforcing a particular interpretation of this regardless of the desires or interests of the others involved. As I said, you can burn your own down any time. Make it clear you don't care and others might burn yours down for you Do look up how ethics and tribal rules drastically predate anything you might regard as a basis for morals. Yours are simply institutionalised derivatives. Some are evn effective, mainly because they are essentially copies of other rules that owe nothing to your religion. Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Sunday, 21 March 2010 12:49:28 PM
| |
Oh Rusty back to moral relativism when it suites you. Why am I surprised?
Posted by runner, Sunday, 21 March 2010 9:40:14 PM
| |
"back to moral relativism when it suites you" - because it works so much better than pretending to have absolutes then picking and choosing which bit's are abloute, which bit's were concessions to the culture, which bit's are or were peoetry and which bit's you will just pretend are not really there.
Add to that the difficulties associated with adding in your own rules and trying to pretend that they are part of the absolutes and moral relativism just works a lot better. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Monday, 22 March 2010 6:19:56 AM
| |
All the time I though feminism was about giving women the freedom to do what they wanted. (within legal limits)
The moment they do, we get articles from the anal retentive religious right trying to take control of the feminist agenda. What today's generation need is women's rights not right wing women. Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 22 March 2010 11:13:42 AM
| |
'but there'll probably be another idiot to take her place.'
Who is the idiot pynchme? She's just doing a job and getting paid lots and lots of money. A true icon for women to look up to. That money buys all sorts of independence too. Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 22 March 2010 12:24:37 PM
| |
Yes Robert moral relativism does allow us to enjoy our sin pretending their will be no consequence. The making your own rules is exactly what moral relativism is.
Posted by runner, Monday, 22 March 2010 12:46:48 PM
| |
hey runner,
What specifically will the consequence be? And what if the rules you make happen to conform to His rules anyway? If I make my own rules, and by observation they are identical to gods, does that not mean I am as worthy as god to your worship? Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 22 March 2010 1:05:16 PM
| |
Houellebecq, you ask
'What specifically will the consequence be? And what if the rules you make happen to conform to His rules anyway?' The consequences of failing to love your neighbour as yourself is murder,corruption, deceit, adultery, rape, lies. We see the fruit of this today in bullying in schools, racism, greed, sexualisation of children, arrogance, self righteousness, divorce, rebellious kids etc. IN other words a far more unpleasant place to live like Islamic or Communist (godless) countries are. You ask 'If I make my own rules, and by observation they are identical to gods, does that not mean I am as worthy as god to your worship?' If you come up with the same conclusion as God you will more likely live a more blessed and peaceful life than if you don't. Numerous people have benefited by growing up in a land that adopted biblical principles despite not being believers themselves. Just imagine the Japanese had of overtaken this land in WW2. The whole point of Christ dying was that you and I as an individuals are incapable of living up to all of God's laws even if you think they are a good idea. Only self righteous people believe they have attained to His perfect standards. It is only in humility when you realize that you are a lawbreaker that you are made worthy to commune with the One true holy and loving God. The vast majority of people can't even live up to their own poultry standards let alone God's. The final destination for those rejecting God's great gift of love is hell. Yours and mine destination depends on our response to God's wonderful gift to mankind of which the god deniers seem to take such delight in mocking. No man or woman will or has access to God because they are righteous. They have access because the Righteous One took place for the unrighteous and they believe that by faith. An honest look at one's heart will always lead to that conclusion. Posted by runner, Monday, 22 March 2010 3:23:22 PM
| |
Thanks for explaining your god runner. You treat my questions with great respect. I often wonder why other posters have such a problem with you.
Hey I like this quote from a movie. I don't know whether it is even in the bible, but I wonder what you think of it given your last post... 'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee. ' Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 22 March 2010 4:30:16 PM
| |
Houellebecq: Is that Pulp Fiction? One of my favourite (well, top couple of dozen but I haven't seen it in a while) movies and a very interesting character study.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 22 March 2010 4:44:17 PM
| |
You're such a tease, Houellebecq.
>>Hey I like this quote from a movie. I don't know whether it is even in the bible...<< You know perfectly well there's no such passage in the Bible. Jules says: "There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17" But the "quote" is pure Tarantino. The Ezekiel verse is much less exciting: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them." I think in the original it goes on to say "and I'll stamp my foot, very hard, then you'll be sorry", but that bit got lost in translation. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 22 March 2010 4:48:10 PM
| |
Houellebecq: <"Who is the idiot pynchme? She's just doing a job and getting paid lots and lots of money.">
I don't measure success by the accumulation of wealth. Women's bodies have been bartered and sold throughout history and the vast majority haven't gained any reward from it anyway. Pimps seem to gain the most. I am particularly conscious of any human silly enough to choose for themselves submission to that ethos - they might stack up some quids, but the damage to women and people as a whole is immeasurable. I wish her wish her well, but can't respect her. Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 22 March 2010 4:53:55 PM
| |
Houellebecq,
I suspect you are asking me what I think about the Lord's vengeance on those who do evil. My personal wish and desire is for all to know the goodness, forgiveness and love of God rather than His wrath. Thankfully He has made that possible through Christ who took my punishment and your punishment. I think that a God that does not punish the wicked would not be holy and good. It would be like a judge letting a murderer or padeophille off his crime without that person even acknowledging their wrong doing and crime against humanity. It would make a joke out of justice as many of our courts do today. Posted by runner, Monday, 22 March 2010 5:08:08 PM
| |
Pericles you spoil sport. I bet you're one of the kids who'd alert the teacher to the kick-me sign on their back.
pynchme, See, now I'm thinkin': maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. And I'd like that. But that sh1t ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd. '. Women's bodies have been bartered and sold throughout history ' I cant get enough of that gear. Brings a smile to my face every time. 'the vast majority haven't gained any reward from it ' Hmmm, protection, security, food. It's an avenue the downtrodden men don't have access to. 'Pimps seem to gain the most.' Yes, but in any co dependence there is always something in it for each party. 'but can't respect her.' I have no doubt she doesn't need no seek your respect. If you're looking to pop stars to be the guardians of your philosophical idealism. I see a pragmatic woman making her stake in the world. You go Ga ga girl! runner, 'My personal wish and desire is for all to know the goodness, forgiveness and love of God rather than His wrath' I'm sure you wouldn't want to pick and choose from God's messages though? I suppose when you're in the role of educating us about god, you have to balance out the negative propaganda from others. Thank you again for your answers. You show up these moral relativists in your responses. Your god must be all that and more. Sorry to bother you with one more question? I have never understood this Jesus 'who took my punishment and your punishment'. If he did, god has no punishment left to do, as Jesus has taken the cane for us in advance? Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 22 March 2010 5:15:11 PM
| |
Runner,
Since you very deliberately and very desperately defend literalism by cherry-picking quotes from scientists who do not actually oppose or disagree with evolution, whose moral relativism is more to be valued? Hang on, even the (very nominally) deist scientists you quote are heretics by your rules too. They don't believe in *your* god either. Hmmmm. I'l take ethics any day. *Your* moral relativism is only there because pastor would have to do a days work to come up with better. Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 22 March 2010 8:45:16 PM
| |
Houellebecq: <"...the vast majority haven't gained any reward from it '
Hmmm, protection, security, food. It's an avenue the downtrodden men don't have access to."> Well apart from the fact that "downtrodden men" DO access the avenue - via buying/selling other humans as a commodity - what's stopping men from selling themselves? What stops you from selling your body for someone else's use? Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 22 March 2010 10:56:09 PM
| |
Runner <" If you come up with the same conclusion as God you will more likely live a more blessed and peaceful life than if you don't."
Where did you hear what your God's conclusion was Runner? From the 2000 year old book where several men claim to 'know' what he said through an apparent human son? Oh, ok then. I am assuming that you live a more blessed and peaceful life than all the non-believers then Runner? You never sound very peaceful on these posts though. You sound angry and judgmental. If that is what believers sound like, then I am glad I am not one of them! Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 22 March 2010 11:07:56 PM
| |
Boy this is the most entertaining debate ever ;)
I think that ever since the rise of the Christian church, and the efforts to stamp pagan behaviour, people have been trying to control or moderate human sexual behaviour ever since. Who was the saint who began the book of sins? There is evidence that (some) women both resent and desire male attention, which is really a no win situation. Whilst a married woman may enjoy attention from other males, woe betide her husband if he should pay too much attention to another female. On either side of this subject there are numerous opposing and conflicting values, beliefs and behaviours. Sex is really about a womans power to control us blokes. Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 8:00:44 AM
| |
pynch,
Ah, I get it, you see all men as one. If a few men buy and sell humans, all men have the power to do so. I disagree. When men are the buyers and sellers, and 90% or so of men are hetero, there is less market for men to sell themselves. 'What stops you from selling your body for someone else's use?' Fortunately I have other options, like the vast majority of women in Australia. The point is, take a poor man and a poor woman, both with no education and low intelligence and prospects, the woman at least has the option to sell her body. The man generally doesn't. With more women in power in the world, there would be less men in jail for theft and more men on the game. I'm sure you believe women in power would not 'buy and sell humans', but just look at White privileged women on sex tours to Africa and see the men happily taking the opportunity to be looked after. Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 1:13:12 PM
| |
Suzie you write
'I am assuming that you live a more blessed and peaceful life than all the non-believers then Runner?' Up until now I have lived a very blessed and peaceful life. Whether it is more blessed than unbelievers I suppose it depends how you measure. Many unbelievers I know are never really satisfied in life. They need more booze, a younger woman or drugs to make them happy. Others whole enjoyment depends on whether their footy team wins or not. 'You never sound very peaceful on these posts though. You sound angry and judgmental.' Your conclusion that I am very judgemental seems to derive from the fact that Jesus taught that all who reject His great love ends in hell. Speaking the truth does not make a person judgemental. You might actually find that it is quite merciful especially if a person is saved from that destination. I am angry at times which is a normal emotion. I am angry when I see kids abused. I am angry when I see old people bashed. What you do with anger is what is important not the fact that you have the emotion of anger. My family and friends would not describe me as an 'angry' person. That is more important to me that what a stranger labels me. Posted by runner, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 2:42:49 PM
| |
Houellebecq: Nevermind trying to evade the question and accountability for your remarks.
You said that women can sell their bodies for, "... protection, security, food. It's an avenue the downtrodden men don't have access to." I ask you, would you sell your body for protection, security, food? Would you feel ok with that being your only or perhaps most viable option for obtaining basic necessities ? You are very naive if you think downtrodden men don't have the option; if a bloke wants to sell sexual favours there are other men who would pay. Remember that when your body is for sale, your sexual preferences are not the priority - a market is a market; as far as possible one meets the wants of the customer. You said that the vast majority of women have other options - in Western society in the past 40 years yes, more than in the past anyway. - but not absolutely and not in non-Western societies. That explains my lack of admiration and respect for people who choose to subscribe to sex-for-sale ethos. Of course she doesn't need or seek my respect; she doesn't know me and probably never will. That doesn't matter. JamesH: <"Sex is really about a womans power to control us blokes."> If you choose to grovel for sex then you're choosing to hand power over yourself to someone else. That's why people like Lady Gaga (and her producer/pimps/hangers on responsible for marketing) can make large sums of money. Women rarely need to grovel because blokes like yourself choose to be very available. If you weren't, women would have to work at obtaining sex too. Law of supply and demand. Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:01:36 PM
| |
pynchme:"Would you feel ok with that being your only or perhaps most viable option for obtaining basic necessities?"
A whole lot better than if I had no option at all. Besides, generations of people of both sexes have sold the use of their bodies to others. From whores to soldiers to miners to ditch diggers etc, etc, etc. Who is worse off, the whore who may get a fatal dose of syphilis or the labourer who may get a fatal melanoma, or the soldier who faces obvious health hazards(as well as complete loss of autonomy). What was the occupational death rate in th sex industry last year? The construction industry? Your problem is that you see the vagina as "special" compared to all the other bodily parts, since you know it is the source of a woman's power as the entrance to the uterus. Where you go wrong is that whores know that too, but they're more pragmatic about the nature of that power and they are prepared to exercise it with no more strings than prompt and full paymnent, whereas you demand complicated mutual obligations based on some weirdo religiously-inspired morality. Are you sure you're not MTR? You sound quite approving of homosexual prostitution, which is quite revealing. Would you be happier of female prostitutes were to quarantine the vagina from the activities? Typical feminist? More your typical wowser looking for a bandwagon I'd say. Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:14:33 AM
| |
Pynchme
_____________________________________________________________________ JamesH: <"Sex is really about a womans power to control us blokes."> If you choose to grovel for sex then you're choosing to hand power over yourself to someone else. That's why people like Lady Gaga (and her producer/pimps/hangers on responsible for marketing) can make large sums of money. ______________________________________________________________________ Haaaaaar, haaaaaar, haaaaar! Well said. Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 7:59:35 AM
| |
pynchme you're in lala land or extremely desperate to defend your point.
If you think the market for male prostitutes is anywhere near the market for females you have a screw loose. Gay guys can get sex whenever they want. Chicks are only now starting to pay for it but there's a lot of competition for those jobs! I'm sure in your world any prostitute is doing it because they have to, but there are more than a few who would just rather screw their way to a house deposit rather than working away as an accounts clerk. It's probably a smart move for a while, but trouble is once they're hooked on the 'easy' money it's hard to give up, and they are exposed to some disgusting blokes and drugs and a world of sadness. 'Would you feel ok with that being your only or perhaps most viable option for obtaining basic necessities ?' As septic said, 'A whole lot better than if I had no option at all.' Which was my original point. 'evade the question and accountability for your remarks.' How could anyone know what they would do for money if they were really desperate. I'm sure if it meant life or death anyone would rent out their anus. It's a non-issue. And 'accountability for your remarks'? WTF is that all about? Man your true feministing colours are shining! James, I agree with the lala girl.. 'If you choose to grovel for sex then you're choosing to hand power over yourself to someone else.' I have a few times refused sex offered by women, due to personal rules about not screwing house mates, having a girlfriend, thinking the chick was a fruit loop. You should have seen some of the reactions. Absolutely Gob-smacked! One chick just couldn't believe I was serious and got really nasty. One fairly nice looking slim chick I refused to shag because she'd been an obnoxious bitch all night started crying and yelling at me accusing me of thinking she was fat. If more men did it they'd feel a lot more powerful. Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 8:52:32 AM
| |
Antiseptic: <"Your problem is that you see the vagina as "special" compared to all the other bodily parts">
No, you do. What makes your butt or dangly bits or mouth any more special than a vagina ? If prostitution is so highly recommended why aren't you out there peddling your services ? Houellebecq: <"How could anyone know what they would do for money if they were really desperate. I'm sure if it meant life or death anyone would rent out their anus. It's a non-issue."> Exactly - selling sex is often a matter of desperation more than choice from a range of viable options. Not for all, of course. The point is that there is no reason why you can't exercise the same choice. If it's such an easy way towards a house deposit then more men would be doing the same. Houellebecq: <"As septic said, 'A whole lot better than if I had no option at all."> That's the point. You DO have the option and men have always had the same option. If it's such a desirable one that you'd recommend for someone else - no reason to be envious of women - just trot yourself out along one Sydney street or another and make your fortune one head job at a time. Houellebecq: <"If more men did it they'd feel a lot more powerful."> Absolutely. No reason for blokes to behave like they're victims of their libido PLUS it can inspire some very gratifying responses in women who hold to stereotypes about men as sex starved imbeciles. Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:42:50 PM
| |
Yep, thank you runner.
As you fail to acknowledge but any may determine, what you call "absolutes" need not be, but can be confirmed to any desired extent by analysis. You may use the epithet "moral relativism" but what you really don't like is the fact that analysis can determine something just as good as alleged "absolutes" in short order. Since you are dedicated to stagnation, you really don't grasp this. Your book doesn't tell us anything of value we can't work out for ourselves, and neither can you. Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 25 March 2010 12:21:12 AM
| |
pynchme; Still oblivious to supply and demand I see. By your 'logic', prostitution is driven not by demand, but supply. I didn't anticipate you'd be blaming women for prostitution. I thought it was the nasty men creating the demand.
'If it's such an easy way towards a house deposit then more men would be doing the same.' More men would do the same if more women were looking for the service. But the James' of this world ensure all a woman has to do is turn up to a pub for free sex. I cant believe your intellectual dishonesty... 'just trot yourself out along one Sydney street or another and make your fortune one head job at a time.' Competing with the free service offered by the bloke next to me, I'm sure I would be making a fortune. That house would be paid off in no time. 'The point is that there is no reason why you can't exercise the same choice.' Well then there is no reason why women cant 'exercise the same choice' to be CEOs. Enjoy your fantasy world pynch. You really have gotten a few laughs here. With the stupidity of your arguments here one can only conclude you are absolutely terrified of accepting women ever have more opportunity than men. Even if it's to sell their bodies. Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:02:21 AM
| |
The music industry perpetuates this cycle of one-upmanship when it comes to raunch and sex, each star vying for the most outrageous persona. And it is the public that let themselves get sucked into it and pay over large wads of cash.
Wouldn't be a problem if it was confined to adult audiences who can make a choice about whether the Gaga is for them, but music is very much targeted at the young. Now my kids are older they are more discerning and can see things for what they are without the burden of peer pressure, but it's hard going for parents sometimes battling against the lack of care in the corporate world and fostering the sorts of environments that are healthy for children. It says something that many music clip directors have been drawn from the porn industry as with the case of Britney Spears makeover from teen idol to vampy singer. It is a losing battle I suspect, the only thing as parents we can do is hope we build the foundation that allows our kids to make the right decisions for themselves in the pursuit of happiness - whatever that means for them. The only thing Gaga is liberating is her clothing. Now that I have that off my chest two things come to mind about liberation. What is liberation? Liberation could easily be argued as complete freedom to do anything you want without the scrutiny and scorn of social norms. No judgement, just the pursuit of pleasure. We are all socialised to the extent of what we think is desirable behaviours or morally justified. Are we only about conditioning or are there other more innate forces at work? History seems to demonstrate that periods of complete freedoms such as the decadent era of the Roman Empire end badly. Too much self indulgence does not seem to be good for us as a whole. However that is one viewpoint. I don't know the answers and we all struggle with these concepts but it is somehting to think about. Posted by pelican, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:25:44 AM
| |
pynchme:"What makes your butt or dangly bits or mouth any more special than a vagina ?"
Nothing at all, but the market value is considerably lower. What makes a vagina any more special than a broad back or a strong pair of arms? How many bricks can your vagina carry? Can it use a hammer? Turn a screw? Operate a sawmill? Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:34:33 AM
| |
I don't think you need worry pelican. This morning on Sesame Street, I saw a guy dressed as a prince being told by princess puppets that just because they are women they don't need a prince to save them.
The indoctrination starts early. I have seen similar feminist PC stuff on Play School in a Cinderella play. What I don't understand is why not just make up new stories to suit the times. It's a deliberate gender politics deconstruction of fairy tales aimed at toddlers. If it helps kids de-construct advertising I suppose it's good, but it's just another thing to be careful of in modern media; The politicisation of 3 year olds. I'm sure it will lead to 5 year old girls slapping boys in the face when they try to do something nice, just as young girls who like lady GaGa will be destined to be prostitutes. Looking back I remember a fair bit of indoctrination in primary school, notably environmentalism and feminism. Could have just been the particular teachers, but nobody is regulating these messages just as nobody regulates raunch culture. In the end, I always think the world is the world, and kids will find out soon enough that sex can be used for profit, and there are fundamentalists like pynchme ready to poison their minds. It's up to parents to educate kids of the pit-falls. I think a educating and empowering kids about the many dangers in the world is always better than attempting to change society, or even the view of society seen by children. It's more likely to work. Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 March 2010 8:48:08 AM
| |
Houlley I think you know I don't think girls who watch the Gaga are destined to be prostitutes. I speak out about sexualisation of children because it is an unpopular viewpoint and if the PC position is complete freedoms no matter what, then people like MTR (on this issue) at least keep the pressure on.
As for the rest, indocrination does start early. Even parents manipulate their kids as part of discipline and guidance. Many argue that the school system is rife with evil socialists all pushing their environmental, political and feminist views onto children. I had a mix of lefties and righties not so much of the feminism - that came at uni but it was at a time when women were still earning lower wages for doing the same jobs. However despite all these lefties rampaging the schools, the world has pretty much moved to the Right of politics. I had a bit of a giggle over the Sesame Street Prince scenario. This is difficult because as a child of the 60s, I still do like the old fashioned stuff a bit, opening doors, manners, flowers, femininity/masculinity. If a prince wants to do nice things for me that is okay by me. These things are usually about degree and respect, but maybe I am an anachronism. I hope we continue to value diversity and difference even in gender. Indoctrination is in the eye of the beholder and only bad when you don't agree with it. :) Posted by pelican, Thursday, 25 March 2010 9:39:23 AM
| |
pelican,
'Houlley I think you know I don't think girls who watch the Gaga are destined to be prostitutes.' Really? Maybe just slappers:-) 'Indoctrination is in the eye of the beholder and only bad when you don't agree with it.' Indeed pelican. I always used to laugh at right wing merchant bankers and lawyers complaining about the left wing universities and schools. Sacrifice your salary and become a teacher if you want in on all that indoctrinating action I would say. Or pay teachers more. It's natural for lower paying educational occupations to attract more lefties I reckon. Anyway, they put up with 'those who cant teach' all the time, they deserve to get their own back. 'These things are usually about degree and respect, but maybe I am an anachronism. I hope we continue to value diversity and difference even in gender. ' Be careful, pynchme's around... Having a daughter I'm happy enough with the message from that sesame street episode; I want her to be independent and not a victim-feminism junkie like pynchme. My objections are it's just a little early in the morning for gender politics and aimed at children a little young for it, and really it irks me that they are that desperate as to put their message across in sesame street. Kids will get enough spin from politicians throughout their lives, 3 years old I think should be able to enjoy a harmless tale. Which is the parallel I made with your sexualisation of children. But, I think, as with the supposed sexualisation of children, the problem is in the adult mind. Kids don't even notice this stuff. Most adults don't either, they don't see kids in dress ups as lolita. Nobody ever complains about those fake muscles on Batman costumes, because it's just boys playing. A better way would be to create further tales about how the princess returns the favour and saves the prince rather than being offended when the prince wants to help. Actually that last sentence sums up the difference in feminist attitudes between you and pynchme I reckon. Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 March 2010 10:39:47 AM
| |
Pynchme
"What stops you from selling your body for someone else's use?" I've never considered that possibility. Is this a life choice that you often consider? "If you choose to grovel for sex then you're choosing to hand power over yourself to someone else." Exactly... One of the reasons that I have little respect for sleazy blokes is the way that they strut like big alpha males yet, when you see them around women, they crawl after them like hungry puppies. Pelican "What is liberation? Liberation could easily be argued as complete freedom to do anything you want without the scrutiny and scorn of social norms. No judgement, just the pursuit of pleasure. We are all socialised to the extent of what we think is desirable behaviours or morally justified." One of the major criticisms of raunch culture is that one set of social pressures has been replaced with another. The current generation of young women are under pressure to have this highly assertive sexuality that just doesn't suit many young women. Posted by benk, Thursday, 25 March 2010 9:12:35 PM
| |
benk
"One of the major criticisms of raunch culture is that one set of social pressures has been replaced with another. The current generation of young women are under pressure to have this highly assertive sexuality that just doesn't suit many young women." benk you have described it well. Commercially raunch is in - it is big money - but socially we still see criticism towards sexually liberated women that Gaga portrays. The slut website is one good example of the contradictions and hypocrisies that young people have to rationalise. Those raising teens know all about the pressures on kids and their friends to conform to this pop culture. Even young kids are raunching up although they don't really understand the implications or the significance of gyrating in a sexy outfit, but this is not IMO what childhood should be about. Houlley Thinking again about Sesame Street, one could be forgiven for thinking that this scenario is actually encouraging ingratitude and rudeness. A reciprocal kindness would be my preference. There is nothing wrong in GENTLY introducing concepts to children such as environmental awareness, humanitarian awareness or building self confidence, but not to the point where kids become fretful or over-anxious. A child we know is almost fearful about climate change - she is seven. Some subjects should be introduced when age/maturity appropriate, when kids have also developed some critical reasoning powers. How do you inform older kids about climate change (for example) without increasing anxiety. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/dark-clouds-on-a-clear-day-20091111-ia0i.html I've gone a bit off topic but raunch culture is not age appropriate for pre-pubescents. I agree with benk's last statement, all we have is replaced one social pressure with another. Parents will soldier on as they always do dealing with the fallout and striving to balance and put into perspective all those opposing social contradictions. Posted by pelican, Friday, 26 March 2010 8:21:14 AM
| |
Benk, you might not have read the exchange leading up to that. Earlier Houellebecq said that women can sell their bodies for, "... protection, security, food. It's an avenue the downtrodden men don't have access to."
My questioning intended to evoke some empathy in place of vagina-envy. Although the demand might not be as high, it is quite possible for a bloke to sell sexual favours (mainly to other men). I was therefore pointing out that if someone thinks that women get a good deal in exchanging sex for basic necessities such as safety, security and food; there is nothing stopping them from making the same deal for themselves. If they reflect on what's involved in allowing someone else to use one's body, they might be less cavalier about insisting that others make the choice easily. I am not an advocate of any type of human meat-mart; but am less concerned about people genuinely CHOOSING to sell themselves when they have access to alternative ways of obtaining basic necessities (ie: that it's a genuine choice) and that they can also choose to leave and do something else to make a living. Btw: Not all prostitution is about sex. Although many customers are revolting in one way or another, for some of them it's their only form of human contact. I know of some people who go to sex workers just to be cuddled and held and have someone treat them kindly. Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 27 March 2010 1:31:41 PM
| |
Pynchme
All very true, but my comment was just a joke. Posted by benk, Sunday, 28 March 2010 9:20:11 AM
| |
Sorry Benk I missed it but s'ok mate. A summary of the exchange was about due anyway.
pynch Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 28 March 2010 9:32:41 AM
| |
Pelican
"Commercially raunch is in - it is big money - but socially we still see criticism towards sexually liberated women that Gaga portrays" My point was that women are under the same amount of social pressure than they have always been under. Pressure to adopt a highly confident sexuality that doesn't suit all women. Therefore, Gaga isn't "liberated" at all, her persona stopped being non-conformist a long time ago. "The slut website is one good example of the contradictions and hypocrisies that young people have to rationalise." Good point. Pynchme Good summary Posted by benk, Monday, 29 March 2010 7:14:33 AM
| |
pynch,
'I am not an advocate of any type of human meat-mart; but am less concerned about men doing it than women'. Of course, you've proven that very well! 'people genuinely CHOOSING to sell themselves when they have access to alternative ways of obtaining basic necessities (ie: that it's a genuine choice) and that they can also choose to leave and do something else to make a living.' But there's the catch isn't it pynch. No women in your eyes is ever really choosing, and it's 'societal expectations' or some other external factor. But a man choosing, well, it's always a simple choice. 'My questioning intended to evoke some empathy in place of vagina-envy.' Oh yes, there is always empathy from you for those with vaginas, even when they're making money 'exploiting' lonely men. But exploitation only ever runs one way doesn't it pynch. The quote that started all your BS... 'the vast majority haven't gained any reward from it' I think I've proven they are rewarded. They might not find the work 'rewarding', but neither do I find my job 'rewarding'. But it has monetary rewards, as does prostitution. 'Although the demand might not be as high' And hence the pay and hence the viability. As I said pynch, you are absolutely terrified of accepting women ever have more opportunity than men. Even if it's to sell their bodies. Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 29 March 2010 10:24:57 AM
| |
pynchme,
' If they reflect on what's involved in allowing someone else to use one's body, they might be less cavalier about insisting that others make the choice easily.' Who said anything about a 'good deal?', or 'easily'. This is your prejudicial view of any man who dare not talk about prostitution in an 'oh the poor women' tone. You see all prostitution through a 'men exploiting women' lens. I merely pointed out the positive for women in the co-dependent relationship. How dare I! You deliberately misrepresent the argument. The fact that women have more opportunity than men in this one aspect of society (to trade with their bodies) has even been used by feminists the world over to bemoan the misogynist and shallow nature of men. Yet you somehow find this so objectionable for it to be pointed out by a male poster, that you have to 'teach-em some empathy and make-em relate'. How arrogant. That you feel you have to 'teach em' says a lot about your general prejudiced derogatory attitude to men, assuming they could not possibly have any empathy for the plight of many women prostitutes. You're dead wrong. Offensively so. But in doing so at least you highlight your indifferent attitude to any men who may find themselves selling their soul for money and your complete ignorance about the added burden of sacrificing their sexual orientation and identity to do it. That you somehow pretend this is equivalent to what women experience is also offensive, but completely expected. In short, you have no idea love. I pity any male coming to you for counselling, I really do. Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 29 March 2010 11:16:38 AM
| |
Pynchme
Whenever you are feeling down, at least you can take solace in the thought that at least you could make more money than Houllie as a prostitute. Im sure that will make you feel much better. Posted by benk, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 3:50:35 PM
| |
That's the problem benk, she doesn't think she can. There is no area in life where women have any advantage over men in pynchme's world. I often wonder whether if she became pregnant with a girl she would abort because she obviously thinks women are the downtrodden martyrs of society. Being female has been nothing but a curse since the dawn of time according to her. There is not one woman in this world who is better off than any man you can pick.
The prostitution is a great example, something that is normally thought of as a negative experience to attain an advantage, and she still cant even accept women have more opportunity than men in this. Until the next sexualisation of women topic that is, then she'll change her tune. Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 8:17:08 AM
|
I haven't seen the clip yet, but have heard from numerous people how "great" / "full on" it is...
I hope Mia Freedman gets a copy of this article...