Random excurse

A slightly sober look at "lolita"

2013-05-13T00:34:00.000-07:00

I have to confess, when I first read the book Lolita, I just got really angry. The book was written from the perspective of the perpetrator (the predator) after all, so it was riddled with victim blaming language that attempted to make him look good to the society. It was almost pandering to societies notions of responsibilities of men and women. Men can prey on any woman they want and society will somehow find a way to hold the woman responsible for the actions/crimes of the man.
I got the sense that the author was trying to convey clearly that the protagonist was in fact a criminal, a most heinous kind, and the author's description of his proceeding behavior was to evoke a realization in people on how the mind of a sick asshole works and how it finds validation in the society it lives in. Well, he even stated as much in the Forward he wrote to the story.
With respect to Humbert finding validation in society, I am thinking of all the famous people that crossed the pedophiles mind as he planned to whisk away the poor girl. Not to mention how he used that train of thought to look down on people around him and relegate them to a status of insignificance. These people weren't as intelligent as him so clearly they didn't know what was right and what was wrong. Of course, only he knew what was right. Throughout the thing, even though he was aware of his victim's despair, all that mattered to him was his own pleasure, and how he could maintain it for as long as he could. How could anyone even think of calling that love? Any lesson he spoke of having learned at the end was all lip service and was proven false by his actions.
I also found another thing interesting in the Forward. There was a mention of his arch-nemesis, Quilty, also writing a book about the ordeal. Or was it a biography that had a section on him messing with Humbert? There was no book or testimony of his victim, Dolores Haze, to provide her perspective on the matter. Of course, a careful read of the book 'lolita' shows that Dolores was cornered, frightened, alone, and struggling, but that there is no actual perspective of her's offered. I wonder if that was meant to be a social commentary on how there is a perspective of the two men available but the victim's voice is forever silenced.

I don't know if this text is triggering. The objectifying, victim blaming, and misogynistic perspective and especially the rape of the child could be seen as triggering. I think I said that one shouldn't read this book, and I still say that if you can avoid it, do so. But I cannot deny the fact that it is a one of a kind book that lays bare the psyche of a criminal. I can never know if this truly is what goes through a pedophiles mind (one not ashamed of his attraction and holds a deep hatred of women), but it certainly seemed realistic.

I think another thing left me feeling extremely angry. The fact that this book is romanticized as a lover's perspective. Humbert is not seen as a creepy, objectifying, stalking, kidnapping rapist (i covered this in detail in this post) but as a misunderstood lover; and I, as a human being (let alone as a romantic), find this notion to be sickening.
I also saw this theme play out in an anime that was released recently called Amnesia. One of the men that the lead protagonist (Kaori) knows is in love with her. Kaori is being bullied because she is perceived as dating a popular idol and this drives the guy (who fancies her) to initially keep her in a state of sleep by drugging her and then actually keeping her in captivity in a cage. All this to protect her from the bullies, to protect her from harm, and this display is all forgiven by the protagonist because he loved her. Did I mention that this guy is actually a childhood friend of hers?

What is this warped sense of love and romance? Since when was over-riding the will of others love? Since when was treating people like secondary citizens that exist as objects to satisfy one's own passions love? Since when was controlling a person to that extent not considered abuse? I thought the minimum bar one could set for love was that it encouraged the lover to never hinder the agency and will of the loved. You support the person that you love but never control them.

If only things were that simple ...

2013-05-10T22:47:00.002-07:00

I came across a post today about tweets about a band's fans support the lead singer, who was arrested for attempted murder, and blaming the his victim, the target for the murder. There are two ways to look at it. One way is that some people are better of dead, and the second way is that some people should be dead because you personally want them dead.
Adolf Hitler, for example, can fall under the first category. If he was dead (before he came into power) or if he'd never been born, the amount of damage he wreaked may have never happened. Although that is no guarantee, one can only hope. In this situation, the second one applied, because the target was the wife of the band member, a wife that was divorcing him, mind you. So basically it wouldn't have been long before she was out of his life anyway, and for him to go out of his way to try and hire a hitman to murder her, I think, indicates aggression and a personal vendetta.
It goes without saying that killing someone for a personal vendetta like that (over money matters, most likely) is definitely unacceptable but what I am interested in talking about is the topic of how some people are better off dead for the purpose of social order. There used to be a point when I thought that things might be better if some people were dead and then I realized how many people in the world would need to die for that to be that case. Even then, there is no guarantee that there wouldn't be replacements available for the people who died, or that the system we currently live in wouldn't create replacements to fill in the vacuum. Kill one dictator and ten more will be lined up to take his place.
As long as we live in a social system that fosters and grows oppressors and greed, no number of murders will improve the world. There may have been a point in time when I felt that the world would be a better place with some people dead, but I was wrong and didn't know enough about the world to comprehend why. Murder will not solve the problem, if it did, things would have been resolved a long time ago. Murder doesn't even serve as a practical deterrent.

A cursory net search topic...

2013-05-03T12:26:00.000-07:00

I was trying to find a writer on google and kept drawing a blank so I thought about googling other people to see if they were that difficult to find as well. The narcissist in me typed in my name to find out and I stumbled onto this blog. I specifically only read the first post on the page at that time and it was pertaining to free will. Basically with respect to the illusion of free will. The definition of free will that she (assuming the person is female) dug up was this:

"free will is the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

I am actually very interested in the concept of free will and the possible illusion of it. For example, does a person have the free will to stay alive if they are genetically programmed to seek out suicide? Does a person have the free will to be able to walk if their legs were amputated due to circumstances? Certainly not, because that option is no longer available to them yet. It may become available to them again through bionics and medical advances.

The examples given by this person on the other hand were weak and didn't really add to the discussion. The fact that a person in a shitty job stays in a shitty job for a number of reasons is irrelevant. That person choose to give weight to those reasons and choose to hence stay in that shitty job. He had the option to disregard those reasons altogether. I disagree that a person wouldn't abandon their family if they really wanted to. This world can provide us with many examples to attest to that. It isn't a fair option, and certainly not a desirable one, but the choice is still there. Free will is the ability to choose to do something, and has nothing to do with the choices available.

When people discuss free will, they are talking about a persons ability to choose between different options, not the options available. Whilst I agree that when your options require choose the lesser of two discomforts, you have limited options and need to change the world so that you have a wider variety of options, that actually says nothing about your ability to choose between them.

I have no idea if people have free will or not. I fancy that they do. As apposed to systems (think microsoft and stuff) which follow set procedures and cannot operator outside defined parameters, we are different. But then again, there is no way to determine what our parameters are or if we have any or not, so there is no way to determine whether we are operating outside them or not. I think the philosophical theories related to this are determinism, fatalism, solipsism, etc. At least, these are the three that I am familiar with.

Reading "Emma"

2013-04-17T13:10:00.000-07:00

"Emma" is the third book I've read from the Jane Austen collection. The character introduced at the beginning of the book is a wealthy young lady who never intends to marry and I found this characteristic of her's to be the most attractive. I don't really understand why it is necessary for a woman to be married for her to be happy because even in this book, the happily ever after scenario involves marriage. That was the most disappointing aspect of the book, she married. I suppose it's okay. One can do whatever they please.
I think the book was about growth and learning. About perceiving your surroundings and being careful of your observations, not allowing things like biases cloud your mind.
She was a wealthy young lady with no shortage of cash. I want to know why she did not travel and expand her horizons? It's not like she was unable to financially and I don't think she even had a problem finding someone to go along with her. I suppose that social stigma might have kept her in one place and then there was her father. If I had that much money, nothing short of chains would keep me from setting out on an adventure.
I didn't like the privileged attitude of the girl though. The manner in which she looked down on people for merely belonging to a lower class. I can see that it is a realistic trait for a woman in her position to have but I still dislike it. For someone who considers herself intelligent, and who is described as more intelligent then others around her (with the exception of that one guy who she marries), her position on quiet a lot of topics is very conservative. Love/marriage being one of those topics, where she is always calculating the benefits accrued and damages incurred from a particular connection, marriage being only acceptable if it is a favorable connection.
I'm a little annoyed by the happy ending theme of Austen's collection. Life is not that generous or kind. It is brutal, and I feel that a happy ending takes away from the message of caution that is meant to be conveyed. What is the point of being cautious if things will eventually work themselves out anyway?
Of course, I disagree with the things that we are being cautioned against so the loss of lesson is not that deeply felt but the point stands.

After reading this book, I coincidentally happened upon the movie "clueless" and the parallels between the movie and the book struck me with surprise. I don't know if these parallels were accidental but there were way too many of them for that to be the case. Should I find it funny or sad that one of Jane Austen's work was adapted in such a manner?

Commenting on the previous dialogue

2013-04-12T13:31:00.000-07:00

Reading over these comments for a moment ... Some of them were correct, I got mixed up and started jumping from topic to topic too often so I'm just going to address the confusion here ...

In one of the comments (I think) it was mentioned that I had lost one of them with the following statement:

There is a difference between saying that "rape is a thing and it's bad and we need to fix it" as apposed to "rape is a thing, believe it, it will happen to you ...

This was in response to the picture posted ... -
As I said in a previous comment, it doesn't challenge the notion of rape but establishes it as an inevitability...
if you have a problem with the word inevitability ... then let me put it another way, it is like a threat ... "you will get raped"
This idea is planted primarily in the minds of women in order to police their behavior ... sure, a man can look at it and feel threatened as well, after all 1 in 20 men are raped ...
A joke that questions whether a rape even happened or if something was even rape is also a rape joke and I'm not sure but didn't this kind of thing happen when that girl Mukhtaran Mai was fighting for justice, plenty of jokes were thrown around on television about rape?

Then there was an example of two rape jokes ... I had mentioned the difference between criticizing the culture surrounding rape and rape jokes. The difference is whether you make the society and the rapist the butt of your joke or the victim. I found this article again which actually deals with it best. For the sake of discussion, feminists never mean the first kind of joke when they refer to rape jokes as a bad thing. It is always the type of joke that laughs at the victim.

There was a mention of why rape jokes are bad and how, if they even, contribute to rape culture. For which I will refer everyone to this post at Shakesville. We live in a society where rape is under reported significantly and only 3% of rapists ever see jail time. Jokes that make fun of the very concept of rape are not helping to change this.

Then there was a mention of how we are making this a better place by showing that rape exist by simply making fun of it. This is basically the argument that the above statement was referring to. There are ways to make it known that rape exists and making fun of the very concept of rape or making rape jokes isn't one of them. Supporting Mukhtar Mai and other victims like her and demanding justice and change and showing what our sick society tries to brush under the carpet on the other hand is a good way to talk about rape and not contribute to rape culture.

An accusation was leveled at me with respect to the use of the term "slut shaming". It was tied to the picture above. When I argued that the picture stated that rape was inevitable. Kind of like it was hinting that there was no escape and you should watch out.
Two counter arguments were offered to me. One argument was that most rapes involve family members and the picture may have been made by a 12-year old girl.
The first argument is just a distraction. It doesn't matter who does the act of rape, the rape still happens and you are still in danger of it happening.
With respect to the second argument, I mentioned the concepts of internalized misogyny and slut shaming. In my mind, if a 12 year old girl was making a threatening picture like this, it wasn't an abstract work and was definitely directed at someone which led me to the concept of internalized misogyny. But even if she didn't have this in mind, what could motivate a 12 year old girl to make a picture like that? Firstly, she would need to feel safe in the assumption that it will never happen to her, and that implies that there are some kinds of girls that escape rape. This brought to my mind the idea that there are ways to escape rape and only some kinds of girls get raped. Most of the time, society dictates that it is "sluts" that get raped because 12 year olds are very easy to influence, as opposed to older and more experienced people. From there I arrived at the idea of slut shaming. "If you are a slut, you will get raped" or so the reasoning goes ...
Of course, that still doesn't change the inherent threat present in the message of the picture.

"Knowing your audience"
You know, this argument has to be the laziest one that was put forward. There is no context in which a shitty joke somehow becomes appropriate. I mean, with the right people around, you will definitely get considerably less flack for it but that's about it. A racist joke doesn't become less racist if said amongst racist people. The same with sexist, antisemitic, and other types of horrible jokes.

A very ludicrous question was asked of me early on in the conversation which I actually skimmed over and didn't pick up on until I started taking the screen shots. "Why do we avoid murder and rape jokes?"
How is that not a rhetorical question? We avoid murder and rape jokes because they are about "murder" and "rape"?! These are silly trivial mistakes people made, there are vastly negative consequences for other people. Trivializing it diminishes the gravity of the matter such that people end up with the idea that somehow these things are funny.

"I am a victim, so it's okay for me to joke about it"
You know, this argument reminded me a little of the friend argument a lot of racists put forward: "My friend said it's not racist so it's not racist."
I really sympathize with the fact that the person is a victim, and that this kind of joke may help them get over it. Actually as long these jokes fit into the criteria previously mentioned, then they are fine. I am clarifying here again, that it's the rape jokes that take a jab at the victim, directly or indirectly, or at the concept of rape itself, that are problematic. As long as these jokes continue to contribute to normalize the presence of rape and trivialize it, I will be opposed to them as a sensible thing regardless of who makes the joke. Even if you are a victim of rape, you are not the only victim of rape.

"Statistical and Anecdotal Evidence"
This person brought up the current status of their victimizer as someone who isn't raping anymore and is in fact sexual repressed. Actually when I look at this in isolation, I am not at all certain about what to make of it. Besides the fact that I am not sure how this person could possibly know every single thing the other person does even if they are family members, what is that supposed to prove?
I tied it into the whole "I make rape jokes but look, my victimizer is not raping anymore so rape jokes do not contribute to rape culture and validate the feelings of the rapist"
Thinking about it now, I think this is actually a very touchy subject. I don't want to point out that there could be many reasons for why the perpetrator ended up that way and that he might actually still be creating more victims because I feel that it might remove some sense of empowerment that the victim feels. They might feel empowered by thinking that now there victimizer is suffering and no one else will suffer by their hands. The reality of the matter is that that isn't necessarily the case. Pointing that out might actually injure some sense of peace they draw away from that thought.
But suppose that they are right and their victimizer is in fact suffering. Firstly, by the claims of this person themselves, they only joke about rape to another rape victim they know in order to alleviate the pain. So they have never made these kinds of jokes in front of the rapist, hence the argument doesn't apply.
Secondly, let's suppose that someone else made these jokes to this rapist but apparently he doesn't feel validated because he isn't raping anymore and is suffering. This person is one statistical point, only one, is a vast ocean of others. Yes, one could argue that statistical evidence is based on anecdotal evidence but the difference between the two is that whilst anecdotal evidence is indicative of individual experiences, statistical evidence is indicative of trends. My individual experience is that I have not been raped but statics point out that 1 in 4 women are raped (at least once during their lifetime?). That means that just because I haven't been raped, doesn't mean that rape isn't prevalent in society. Just because this person's victimizer is suffering and doesn't feel validated by the rape jokes, doesn't mean that in general rapists do not feel validated by rape jokes.

"Ideas are fair game for criticism" and "rape is an idea" ...
I think this is obvious. I mean, it feels obvious. So let's start with what is an idea? This is the definition I found:

i·de·a

noun /īˈdēə/
ideas, plural

A thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action
- - they don't think it's a very good idea
A concept or mental impression
- - our menu list will give you some idea of how interesting a low-fat diet can be
An opinion or belief
- - nineteenth-century ideas about drinking
A feeling that something is probable or possible
- - he had an idea that she must feel the same
The aim or purpose
- - I took a job with the idea of getting some money together
(in Platonic thought) An eternally existing pattern of which individual things in any class are imperfect copies
(in Kantian thought) A concept of pure reason, not empirically based in experience

Now, I'll admit right now that I'm actually not that big on definitions ever since I read the definition of sexism on the internet. To begin with, definitions are subject to change and the culture changes and words take on new meanings and new words are created to explain existing phenomenons. The word "sexism", "feminism", and "racism" didn't even exist at one point in time. With reference to the word "idea" though, that is an established definition and it's not like the concept is still in development (like "Sexism") and our understanding of it is more or less complete. If someone can suggest a better definition which appears more reasonable, I'd probably run with it. As it stands though, I don't think the word "rape" can be considered an "idea". Rape is a description of a physical so the second premise of this argument is completely off. Rape culture, racism, and sexism on the other hand is an idea and can be criticized. I don't know how successful the criticism will be but they are ideas.

I do agree with the criticism that I communicated my thoughts in a very slipshod and incoherent manner.

I never learn

2013-04-12T11:52:00.001-07:00

Ah yes, it's that time again where I post screen shots of an absolutely frustrating and irritating conversation. I really never learn. Well, this time around, in my defense, I was under the mistaken understanding that I was posting my comments in the feminsit group that I am a part of and it was only when i decided to tag a few moderators in the thread that I realized that no, this s*** fest was actually going on in the atheist group that I was a part off. No wonder people could dismiss rape jokes as just harmless jokes you can exchange between people - just make sure the person you are joking with is okay with rape jokes man. What else could possibly be a problem with them?

I feel like I've just been gaslighted but I'm not sure. I had to repeat things over and over again and some of the arguments they offered up were so incredulous that I still feel angry. I really don't know if I actually made the valid points or if I was even saying the right things but I feel extremely agitated right now and I just need someone to validate my sanity so I'm going to post the conversation here or point out what was wrong with what I said but please avoid saying stuff already mentioned in the comments below.
A cursory read does show that I missed some comments in between and started addressing arguments by others.

I did learn one thing. If you are in two groups with the same starting title, read carefully about which one you're about to comment on ...

I do have some commentary of my own in mind but I think I will include it separately in a new blog post because there is enough reading here as it is and I want to tackle the matters separately.

I removed the names because this group of atheists are in a sensitive area and disclosing their identity might place them in a dangerous position. I do still have the original screen shots separately. I think there is one screen shot that I had to retake because one of the comments wasn't fully opened up so one of them might have different timing.
Open the pictures in a new window ...

Edit: the relevant commentary is done

Re-edit: An earlier version of the post left out first names because I was under the impression that that would be sufficient to maintain anonymity of the commentors but people have asserted that that isn't the case so I have fully removed the names (except mine) in this post.

Another Edit: There were a few commentor who had disclosed personal past details (molestation and rape) and they were uncomfortable with it being displayed here. I suppose there are plenty of people that are comfortable with this here and technically you don't have control over your past once you've let it out but the point of this post isn't about the individuals and is actually about the discussion at hand. So I grayed out the specifics of the disclosures since they aren't that relevant to it. I don't know if that removes some context from their comments but words have power and if the individuals in question do not want to see them up, these words specifically only, I think, can be rescinded.

Now onto some "Pride and Prejudice"

2013-04-03T14:47:00.000-07:00

*Spoiler Alert

I don’t know if the title is a hint at a message one is supposed to pick out from the book. I suppose it could be that significant amount of misplaced pride and prejudice can result in unfavorable circumstances but in this day and age, it is my understanding that those people who are to learn this lesson, have already done so and those who remain, will never do so. The titles are an allusion to the theme of the storyline. This is the second novel by her that I have read and by now I have noticed a pattern. It is rather simplistic and straightforward and I image something that is used in most works of fiction so I don’t think noticing it is all that big a deal. Basically the story starts off with establishing a couple who fancy each other, creates an air of their assured future, delves into a crises where the couple is separated, there is a period of confusion where the protagonist and the audience is kept in the dark about different circumstances, and then voila, everything is revealed and resolved and they all lived happily ever after. There is an element of deserving the people that they end up with in it too which I suppose prevents me from truly enjoying the books. If I had read them as a child, I may have enjoyed them immensely, but as it stands, I am no longer a child and can no longer find solace in “happily ever after” stories which spark extreme disbelief. I have seen too much of the world to be able to satisfy myself of this to be a reality (figuratively speaking).

The total number of daughters was higher in this novel as opposed to the last one and so many characters were introduced that I, as someone extremely bad with names, was occasionally lost in who was whom early on in the novel. I have lost the practice of truly applying myself in reading, something I am trying to recapture.

I was reminded also of the mundane dinner parties I was forced to attend with my parents as a child and was a little amused by their (the diner parties') striking resemblance in general to the scenes portrayed in the books. I was never one for idle chatter and it annoys me to no end but I am trying to develop a taste for it. Although I have to say I do enjoy gossip, but this whole matter of pleasantries and civilities strikes me as a rather pointless time pass but that is probably because I do not care to indulge in them and they routinely escape my notice.

Although, I am unable to believe or thoroughly enjoy it due to my twisted sense of reality and humor, I did find the work to be a relatively soothing.

Finally, some "Sense and Sensibility" ...

2013-04-03T14:42:00.000-07:00

* Spoiler alert

So I recently got around to finally reading Sense and Sensibility. I found a Pdf lying around in a corner of my drive. I find these titles online that I should really get around to reading and then once I’ve successfully found a document and I’m about to save it, I get the message that another document with a similar name is already saved in my list of books folder. I should just browse through that folder before downloading anything further. Anyway, so I finally got around to reading one of Jane Austen’s novels and I have to say I was very jealous. The fluid style of the book is so beautiful. I wonder how someone could put pen to paper and just write and write. I suppose that’s probably not how it happened, but you get the sense of a great ease with which the novel was strung together brilliantly. I think I finally understand what Virginia woolf meant that you do not get a sense of anything about the author herself or the conditions under which she wrote the novel. If her writing was interrupted or she was agitated or upset, that emotion does not translate itself onto the text.

I like the gossip aspect of the fiction as well. Since it is written from the perspective of the older sister, there is in element of information gathering to it. She carefully picks out information that is relevant and verified from that which is rumored and waits to have unverified information backed by evidence. Or at least, that is the sensation I got from the book.

I am not sure what makes a book (any book) a classic. It was always my opinion that all classics have some sort of lesson imbibed in their pages. My brother tells me that that isn’t necessarily so. That some books are classics because of their brilliant writing styles or their departure from the norm and setting a new standard of writing. I suppose that could be true but I feel adamant in my pursuit of searching for meaning in the text. One message that is obvious in the book appears to be that good things come to good and sensible people who do not give in to fatuous greed. It is there when they are met with great hospitality by their landlord. There when the older sister finally gets to settle with the love of her life and it is there when the colonel patiently waits for the girl of his affections to finally consider him.

I didn’t like the fact that the storyline revolved entirely around the prospect of finding a suitable mate and settling down. I suppose it wasn’t directly portrayed as such but that appeared to be the underlining current. I was also irked by a passing mention of the second daughter Marianne as an object or reward. Close to the end, Elinor at one point contemplates wishing death upon the wife of her sister’s love interest but immediately decides that the Colonel deserves her more. This was done in such a way as to remove the agency of Marianne. It is not a matter of whom she wants to be with but rather who deserves her better and therefore should be with. This was the only thing in the entire book that really caught my eye specifically for some reason.

All in all, I enjoyed reading it.

The Character of "Motoko Kusanagi"

2013-04-02T10:05:00.000-07:00

Lifted from here

I imagine the majority of Anime fans out there nowadays know about Ghost in the Shell and the character of Motoko Kusanagi. I have always viewed her as an empowered woman but someone pointed out how she is sexualized in some episodes and that this sexualization negates her as an empowered character.
Does a character need to be completely devoid of sexuality to be presented as an empowered character? Although I agree that the importance placed on maintaining a generic image of beauty as set by society is problematic but does adhering to this somehow erase all of your other accomplishments? Motoko Kusanagi is an intelligent, talented, female leader of a hidden government intelligence agency. She isn't merely the brains behind guiding the operations, she is also involved in some of the on-the-ground operations, not to mention she has the respect and admiration of all her colleagues. Whilst people outside her work circle indulge in casual sexism around her, that isn't the case with her colleagues who actually treat such manners as laughable or contemptuous. Or at least, in general, they do.
She finds herself in vulnerable situations from time to time but for the most part, she is a strong and self reliant individual. She is engaged with by her peers as an equal or superior. She is a full body cyborg so technically she could take on any body type that she preferred, and people may be correct in their assumption that she is given such large breasts, an hourglass figure, and somewhat "skimpy" clothes to pander to the male gaze. I would like to question the legitimacy of the "a woman has to be a certain way to be taken seriously as a character" or "her choice of clothes don't reflect the profession she is in". At the same time, however, I am conscious of the fact that she was most probably constructed with societies sexist expectations in mind and these attributes of her character may have very much to do with making her a more appealing character to the male audience. In fact, it appears to be classified under the tag "Seinin Manga" at the wikipedia page which denotes a genre of manga targeted towards boys; although this tag is not present on the Anime News Network site. The tag doesn't appear to be repeated at some other sites (here and here) but that was just a quick google search and I may be wrong. It could have ended up with that tag because it was perceived to be catering to the male gaze due to her fashion sense being deemed slutty which brings me back to the question: at what point do stereotypical expectations of women and their sexuality negate their other accomplishments as not empowered?
And to what level is Motoko Kusanagi is sexualized? According to this site, there are four points to consider when determining whether a person is sexualized or not. A person is sexualized if:

If one bases a significant part of one's self-worth on sexual behavior or appearance to the exclusion of other qualities or behaviors
There is the belief that physical attractiveness and sexual appeal are one and the same, and that there are no other elements to physical attractiveness
If others sexually objectify an individual by using that person exclusively for a sexual purpose, such as pornography or prostitution, that person has been sexualized
One individual imposes sexuality on another without the first individual's consent

Lifter from here

I'm a little sad to say that the last three were clearly present in one episode in the second season where they crashed an upper class party to bring a corruption and money laundering case to a close. Here the politicians and others present viewed the general (Motoko Kusanagi) as a sexual interest and reduced her to her body by comparing her to sex dolls (mechanical dolls created for the purpose of sexual gratification). Basically prostitution that involves robots instead of real women. However, it is clearly portrayed as a deviant and undesirable behavior that is indulged in by freaks.
I don't see the presence of the first element throughout the entire thing though. Whilst there is a question posed about why she chooses to stick to a female body model instead of a male one, there is very little focus on her as sexually attractive or of her being reduced to just her body.

I think that her character is skillfully developed and complex and reducing her to merely her appearance and determining from that that she is not empowered is sexualizing her more then what even the show portrays.

When I first saw the show, I was struck by her leadership position, talents, intelligence, and strength and her openness towards her appearance was a side factor that I did not focus on. Her physical proportions, whilst generous, do not appear to me to be outrageous, especially considering the fact that she is a full body cyborg. I suppose the argument for inconvenience could be extended but I am not entirely sure.

This is not to say that there isn't sexism or other problematic aspects in the show. I just don't think that her (maybe somewhat) misplaced sense of style does not mean she is not empowered.

A revolting read: "Lolita"

2013-03-23T06:05:00.000-07:00

* Major spoiler alert

*Trigger Warning: Rape {I'm not sure which other's apply}

*(P.S. I don't recommend reading the book ...)

Pe-do-philia. Pe-do-phile. That is what the narrator of this story is. That is who Humbert Humbert is and no amount of rationalizing will change that.The pedophile spends the first part of the books building up on how it's not really him who is at fault here, it is the demon-possessed-children, the "nymphet", who are fault for putting out alluring wiles that inexplicably entice him. He is not at fault for sexualizing girls, that is merely his sexual orientation, or so he would have the readers believe.
And if the readers fail to buy into that bullshit, there is the even bigger lie of the "nymphet" seducing him by the mere act of existing. They have an air of sexuality about them you see ... not everyone can see it, it takes a very distinct eye of a dedicated specialist to spot them ... and he just conveniently happens to be this specialist ... the deplorable pig!
The amount of victim blaming rhetoric in the first part of this book is absolutely ghastly. The second part doesn't focus on displacing blame onto the victim but rather shifts into justifications by eluding to all the exiting adventures he took her to and how well he cared for her. His victim had everything she could possibly desire, don't you know?! Well, that is of course, except for the freedom to be free of him.

Humbert thinks very highly of himself and goes to great lengths to belittle, disparage (defame?) those around him. With women he focuses on their appearance the most, perhaps leaving some passing comments on their pursuits and character as well if he was forced into their company. The manner in which he describes women in general and his interactions with them specifically is littered with misogyny. Yes, even when he talks about his beloved "Lolita".
I found the use of the word Lolita to be quiet vulgar and repulsive. It struck me as his first step to eliminating the independent agency of the targets of his sexual fancy. They were not living creatures to him, merely objects for his lust. He even comes right out and says it at one point in the book.

Page 26 – “Thus had I delicately constructed my ignoble, ardent, sinful dream; and still Lolita was safe and I was safe. What I had madly possessed was not she, but my own creation, another, fanciful Lolita perhaps, more real than Lolita; overlapping, encasing her; floating between me and her, and having no will, no consciousness indeed, no life of her own.”

This is what he has to say about the incidence of his masturbatory exercise on the sofa with the girl in close proximity to him. Reading that the only word I could think of was: betrayal. There is some level of betrayal involved on the part of the adult that exploits the innocent trust of a child for their own base lust. There is betrayal involved in taking advantage of a child's naivety to touch them with sexual intentions.

Yes, the pedophile (Humbert) can howl all he wants about wanting the spiritual and not the physical intercourse, but this "spiritual" eventually swerves into the physical, does it not?! He doesn't just lovingly hold Dolores's hand or gently caress it. He didn't stop there, he gratified himself to the point of ejaculation. Spiritual to this pedophile is merely intercourse which encompasses decent foreplay.

This man stalked the girl to the best of his abilities without raising suspicions, married her mother in an attempt to get closer to raping her, hid the death of the mother from the child for fear of losing his window of opportunity, denied her even the possibility of seeing her mother one last time at her funeral for the same selfish reason, drugged her and attempted to rape in the immediate aftermath of her mother's death, and fails initially. When he finally succeeds in raping her, he has the audacity to claim she seduced him.

Page 60 – “My life was handled by little Lo in an energetic, matter-of-fact manner as if it were an insensate gadget unconnected with me. While eager to impress me with the world of tough kids, she was not quite prepared for certain discrepancies between a kid’s life and mine. Pride alone prevented her from giving up; for, in my strange predicament, I feigned supreme stupidity and had her have her way at least while I could still bear it. But really these are irrelevant matters;”

All throughout the narration, he has spared his reader no detail, not when he had his first attempt with Anabella, not when he was lecherously following her with his eyes throughout the time he stayed at Dolores's house, not even when he was so eagerly attempting to rape her by drugging her. But all of a sudden when the moment crystallizes, it does not warrant description? Don't get me wrong, I am glad to be spared a graphic depiction of the victim's rape from the point-of-view of the abhorrent criminal rapist. My point is merely that Humbert did not think it wise to allow the reader to decide for themselves whether what he did was indeed monstrous or not. That is all just "really irrelevant matters".

To spare the reader any doubt of the rape, there is even a passing mention of a dialogue between him and Dolores where she stipulates that he raped her and she wanted to speak to her mother to which he responds by giving her the news of the death.

He isolates her, cuts off all access to people who may be able to help her, and then ultimately corners her. And he knows this and he doesn't mind this one bit.

Page 63 – “At the hotel we had separate rooms, but in the middle of the night she came sobbing into mine, and we made it up very gently. You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.”

And still the F*CKER has the audacity to demand that he not be branded a monster.
To erase any doubt that he raped her at least, subsequently if not on that night, he expands as follows:

Page 65 – “it would take hours of blandishments, threats and promises to make her lend me for a few seconds her brown limbs in the seclusion of the five-dollar room before undertaking anything she might prefer to my poor joy.”

She had to be coerced into fucking, coerced into making a "choice" in a situation where not making that "choice" meant abandonment. Where not making that "choice" meant all manner of terrors that he himself had instilled in her:

Page 66 – “”…This is the situation, this is the choice. Don’t you think that under the circumstances Dolores Haze had better stick to her old man?”
By rubbing all this in, I succeeded in terrorizing Lo, who despite a certain brash alertness of manner and spurts of wit was not as intelligent a child as her I.Q. might suggest.”

He still persists in branding her the nymphet, making sure that the reader will be more sympathetic to his needs as a pedophile then hers. By the second part, he probably feels he has established enough of the trapped in her demonic magic them to not bother revisiting it anymore.

He does not talk much of her participation in the "intercourse" (read: rape). Where he does mention it, there is a clear indication of her dissent on the matter.

Page 72 – “while Lo, on the other hand, would do her utmost to draw as many potential witnesses into her orbit as she could.”

Page 74 – “I remember the operation was over, all over, and she was weeping in my arms; a salutary storm of sobs after one of the fits of moodiness that had become so frequent with her in the course of that otherwise admirable year!”

Page 77 – “and her sobs in the night every night, every night the moment I feigned sleep.”

Page 81 – “... what I feared most was not that she might ruin me, but that she might accumulate sufficient cash to run away.”

Page 85 – “and ”Pulease, leave me alone, will you,” you would say, “for Christ’s sake leave me alone.””

The reason why I stumbled onto this book was because of a tumblr post that claimed that this book was being incorrectly romanticized. That it was rather abhorrent, in fact, that a book where a child is stalked, kidnapped, raped, groomed into a prostitute-like behavior, caged and restricted, and who subsequently dies in "childbed" is glorified as romantic. I think I also read a fleeting reference to Lolita in another novel as well which spurned my curiosity on the text.

I seem to have skipped things in my anger. I really can't think of a coherent, logical, and structural manner in which to analyze this abomination. I feel maybe the audience would have been more sympathetic to her plight if someone had put into words her suffering as well. I fear that kind of text may be a more painful and disturbing read then this narcissistic dribble the criminal slapped together to garner the most sympathy for himself. But I would certainly prefer it to reading this.

He goes about clearly stating how much smarter he is than all the 'fools' in the medical profession and simultaneously paints himself as a humble man captive at the whims of a 'nymphet'. See, the medical professional are all 'fools' so them branding him or even pedophilia as dangerous is foolish. The world is wrong. He is not dangerous. Why can't people just leave him alone to express his sexuality freely?! Why don't they just let him have his little 'lolita'?! I'm beginning to hate that word a little.

He managed to trap and terrorize a child in a world where the law would have protected the child. Imagine the havoc a law that permitted his 'sexual expression' would wreck on the lives of children everywhere.

Even until the very end, he is not upset that he did everything that he did. Sure he laments that perhaps Dolores would have been better off with a normal possibly 'shitty' childhood, but he never submits that he wished things were different. He is shameless enough to want her back even as she is married and with child! The only difference is that this time around, he can't force her to go with him. He even has the nerve to say she betrayed him and it doesn't dawn on him for a moment what a betrayal his treatment of her it must have been all those years. She didn't betray him, merely fled his abuse that she did not know how to stop!

His pursuit of the stranger "cue" was also self-gratifying. He did not want to kill the man because of some perceived or real slight towards Dolores. He wanted to kill the man because he freed his hostage and took away the dream of handling and traumatizing another child, Dolores's child.

Not once did this arrogant, selfish, callous, pedophile FUCK stop to think of the harm he had caused the girl. Not once until after she had escaped. Until after his dream had been wrenched from him! He never once stopped to reconsider traumatizing the love of his life, his first love. Never once considered taking heed of her request to stop doing these filthy things and just live like normal people.

It almost feels like the reflections of having destroyed her life, at the end of the book, are a token tossed in at the end to humanize his monstrous character and garner sympathy. I do not doubt it is possible for him to realize the impact of his actions, it is merely too little, too late!

I feel like this needs to be reiterated: This book is about a man who objectified, stalked, kidnapped, and rapped a prepubescent girl. It is not possible to see it as a love story unless you remove the agency of the child and objectify her as a means to an end.

The anime "Nana" ...

2013-03-21T09:14:00.001-07:00

I should probably mention spoiler alert at this point.

This image was acquired from wakpaper.com and is created by kawaiidanychan

This anime has been on my mind for a very long time now. When I first watched it I found the two characters a bit annoying but then again, back then I was steeped in patriarchy a lot deeper then I am now. The character of Nana Osaki bothered me the most because of her controlling nature. I suppose it was an irritation on my part on her desire to do things a certain way. She loved Ren but she didn't settle for simply marrying him and going to Tokyo. She could have made it as a singer even as his wife. Then again, why is she the one required to make the sacrifices to help achieve his dreams. His dream is to be a popular musician and that can be achieved even by remaining in the band he is currently in. When I think about it, I like her desire to make it on her own and not rely on anyone for help. I still stand by my dislike for her desire to control those around her. It's not like she manipulates them but there is a hint of a desire to do so and that bothers me.
Then there is the other Nana, Nana Komatsu. I can't really tell what to make of her. I suppose I dislike her naivety a bit though and the manner in which the other character (Ren's teammate) manipulates her initially almost to mock Osaki. I feel a little upset by the manner in which the situation appears to take a turn for the worst whenever things are working out well.
This is one of the few anime's I've watched that have strong female characters with complex real life experiences and these experiences aren't strongly overshadowed by the presence of men in their life.
I love the drama in the series though. Last I checked they had stopped at the second season but the manga is ongoing (haven't checked out the manga yet though).
I have to say that it challenges the notions of what roles women should traditionally follow. I found Osaki's desire to make it on her own somewhat inspiring. There does appear to be a hint of wanting to have it all in her pursuit of a career and her love interest, but I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting it all as long as there is the understanding that it might not work out.
On the other hand, I wonder if the aim of the anime was to discourage such pursuits by portraying all the hardships that will be waiting for anyone who tries. Nana Osaki ends up splashed across gossip magazines as her agents exploit her association with a member of a popular band ultimately developing panic attacks. I don't remember exactly what the cause of her panic attacks was though. I think it may have to do with the possibility of losing a close friend (Nana Komatsu) and having too many uncontrollable elements introduced into her life. And then there is Komatsu who ends up being waylaid after finally having her life in a specific direction because her lover decided to cancel the engagement/marriage to protect the popularity of the band after his teammate Ren's relationship is exposed.
I personally didn't see it as a cautionary tale though since everything has costs and benefits and nothing comes easy. Although I can completely see how it can be interpreted that way.

Another example in victim blaming ...

2013-03-10T08:47:00.000-07:00

So recently I've managed to figure out how to operate tumblr and found some interesting tumblr blogs to follow and keep up with. Today this post showed up on my dashboard. It's a quote by C. Joybell C which reads as follows:

“I believe in strong women. I believe in the woman who is able to stand up for herself. I believe in the woman who doesn’t need to hide behind her husband’s back. I believe that if you have problems, as a woman you deal with them, you don’t play victim, you don’t make yourself look pitiful, you don’t point fingers. You stand and you deal. You face the world with a head held high and you carry the universe in your heart.”

You know what? I believe in strong women as well. I find them inspirational and I do think that women are better off independent. As far as I'm concerned, all individuals should try to be self sufficient. But the reality of this life isn't that kind. Women oppressed by virtue of their gender won't simply be able to brush that off and take a stand against all the barriers placed in front of them. Women further oppressed by race have additional problems to face. Not to mention the problems raised via differing sexual orientation, class oppression, etc. Women do not choose to be oppressed, they are forced into oppression by virtue of characteristics outside their control.

The "don't play the victim", "don't make yourself look pitiful", and "don't point fingers" bit really drove the point home. This is victim blaming language that states that they aren't actually victims, they are just faking it to get sympathy and appear "pitiful". It is not that they are pitiful but rather society wants to paint them that way so as to turn the word "victim" into something tainted. I think this quote (taken from this piece here) by Ekis Ekman states it best:

"Let us reject the post-modernist victim hate. Being a victim is not shameful or an insult, neither is it a trait of character. For in an unjust world there will always be victims, there will always be people who have less power and wealth than others, who have less control over the direction in which their lives take. That you are a victim doesn’t mean you won’t find ways of adjusting to the situation you find yourself in, it doesn’t mean that you lack the capacity to think and act rationally. What it does mean is that we live in a world sorely in need of change. By abolishing the victim and by framing all of our actions as an individual choice the post-modernists are mounting nothing other than a reactionary defense of the status-quo."

Women do not choose to become victims. They are made into victims by perpetrators and their enablers who are more focused on deflecting the blame then addressing the problem at hand which is a lack of justice. There is nothing wrong with being a victim. What is wrong is shielding victimizers and insisting that victims not identify the perpetrators.

There is nothing wrong with pointing fingers. How are you going to solve a problem if you don't get to the root of it?! In fact, it is empowering and take immense strength to point fingers when the entire society would rather you remain silent. People do not become victims, they are made victims.

Being weak is not a fucking crime.

Being weak is not an invitation for injustice,

For victimization!

It is true that you need strength to survive in this world and get justice.

But it is unjust to expect people to be strong to get justice.

Even the weakest of people deserve justice

It isn’t a fucking privilege of the strong ...

It is not the people that need to change to get justice

It is society that must change to bring justice to these people!

Justifications for Oppression, Patriarchy, and the Status Quo

2013-03-08T12:45:00.000-08:00

As is obvious from the last post, I have moral relativism on my mind today. It was brought to my attention that the concept of evil is relative hence it is difficult to apply it as a judgment value.
I suppose in a manner of speaking, that is true. The concept of evil is relative. For example, the person upon which the injustice is being acted upon will certainly see it as evil but the person who is acting out the injustice will not see it as evil. The victim's will always view the acts as evil, but the perpetrators will have the privilege of not needing to do so. This is obvious in the behavior of racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc. They have the privilege of not knowing better and they choose to stew in this privilege.
So what makes an act evil? What is evil relative to? Is that another way of saying that in an era when wife beating was common, only a man who flogged his wife was evil? Are we to excuse these men simply because it never occurred to them that treating another human being like property was a little problematic?
This whole logic of what was acceptable for a single time period is "good" or cannot be declared "evil" because they didn't know better is fishy. Even now, people would not have known better if the oppressed classes hadn't bothered to fight back. The tools required to see through the oppression were available back then. Logic is not limited to just recent eras. People 3000 or even 10000 years ago weren't unintelligent morons incapable of logical thought. They actively decided that some peoples lives were worth more and they deserved more then others. They actively stepped forward to oppress the masses.

But we were on the concept of evil. When a person is raped, brutalized, humiliated, bullied, murdered, or tortured; we can clearly see that it is evil, but it is difficult to put into words why. Is it because one would not want such a thing to happen to themselves? Is it because the pain inflicted on the person is inhumane? What about pain that is not visible to the human eye? Psychological/emotional, is that less damaging? Is it really a major leap of faith to think that flogging someone or bullying them could have negative repercussions on their psyche even in the absence of scientific facts?

But suppose that we couldn't argue that certain things were evil but could still argue that they were undesirable for a great many in the population. Poverty and starvation, for example, is undesirable. Lack of autonomy is undesirable. Slavery of any kind (sexual, manual, etc) is undesirable. And things that are undesirable need to be eliminated. In that case, what argument is there for maintaining that undesirable.
What reason do you have for prioritizing and eliminating corruption but not slavery, rape, disease, domestic violence and the like when you cannot assign a value to it? You can tell that all are undesirable, or at least, one would hope that a decent human being can determine that all are undesirable but how can you prioritize one over the other? I suppose I could even ask how one is to determine that they are undesirable in the first place? It isn't because they are evil since evil is relative and therefore different people will view different things as relative.
Is it because a larger amount of people find it to be undesirable in comparison to all the other things listed? So we are relying on mod rule here? If the majority wants to change something, we will change it, otherwise to hell with it, let's stick with the status quo?

It feels like this isn't even about justice or relativism anymore, it is merely an excuse for maintaining your privilege; class, gender, sexual orientation, and otherwise.

Patriarchy is your culture and you want me to ascribe to it as well? Well, it is not my culture! I don't want it to be my culture. There are many out there who agree with my sentiments. Actually this space is not yours alone, it is also my space, and you do not have a right to tell me how I should conduct myself in this space.
As per the laws of moral relativism, your culture is not acceptable to me and you actually do not have a right to this entire space. There is room in this space for my culture and my culture dictates the destruction of patriarchy and privilege. As per the laws of moral relativism, you do not have a right to stuff your culture of oppression down my throat.
Your culture dictates that I, as a women, do not have certain rights. My culture dictates that you, as a sexist, do not deserve respect.
Do not be mistaken. It is not the culture of equality that is the invention here, it is the culture of inequality and oppression that is the invention. Our culture is merely setting the record straight to align reality with facts.

Delving into moral relativism ...

2013-03-08T11:33:00.001-08:00

Moral Relativism. What is acceptable for one culture is not acceptable for another. Or even what is acceptable for one timeline is not acceptable for another.
To a certain extent, this can be true. For example, in the past, it was acceptable for people to not bathe regularly, but isn't the case anymore. Good personal hygiene can help alleviate or altogether avoid certain diseases. It isn't that such a thing wouldn't have benefited people in the past but rather that the knowledge and resources weren't available so people weren't aware of the benefits of bathing. So back in the days, it was acceptable for people to not bathe, especially if they didn't have the resources to afford this luxury.
In the past, it was acceptable to kill an animal by slicing it's throat and bleeding it out because of certain health reasons but that is no longer the case because we have better machines and resources now which deems such barbaric methods obsolete.
For such inconsequential matters, the concept of relativism can be applied. There isn't a very significant difference between eating with knives/forks, chopsticks, or by hand. Even wearing clothes or not wearing them. There are many cultures that dispense with the need of clothes entirely and then there are others which require it. There may not be a need to wear clothes in moderately warm climates. On the other hand, in cold winters, one cannot hope to survive without clothes.
However, there are certain things, or elements of morality to which the concept of relativism cannot be applied. They are absolute because the reasoning behind them applies across the board. Rape is criminal regardless of which culture or century it takes place in. There is no justification for it. The same applies to slavery, murder, genocide, etc ...
No matter what the benefits are, there can never be a justification for slavery. It can be argued that it reaped many economic and social benefits because slave labor was so cheap, as if to try and erase who reaped those benefits. It is one thing to observe and recognize potential benefits of a practice and quiet another to condone it. Whilst the contributions made by the trade may be real, so are the travesties of justice faced by the slaves. Their state of livelihood is a consideration that needs to be factored in and should weigh heavily.
The core of the issue is "why". Why is slavery no longer acceptable? (or if applicable, why is it no longer practiced). What has changed exactly? The reason why slavery is not acceptable now is because the oppressed group had had enough and forced their oppressors to acknowledge their humanity. Does this mean that slaves only gained humanity once they rose up against their oppressors? Did they not have any humanity before they rose up against their oppressors? Is there any significant difference between the people that exist now, compared to the people that existed then? If the people aren't that different, and their humanity isn't any different then what reason is there to claim that slavery was acceptable in the past but no longer in the present? It feels to me like someone attempting to slowly tiptoe around admitting that people aren't equal. Slavery was evil back then just as it is evil now because the reason for why it is evil were present back then just as they are present now.

The same thing applies to women. Women are equal to men. They are not superior, they are not inferior. They are equal. They didn't magically wake up one day to realize that they were equal to men. They always have been. If they have always been equal to men, what reason was there for men to argue that they are not? If they were always equal, then their oppression was always an injustice and regardless of time or culture, it is an injustice. Now once again, people can point and give reasons to how oppressing women led to social and economic gains. But once again, just because a practice is beneficial, does not make it any less evil.
One could claim that the practice of pimping is economically beneficial because it helps the pimp earn money but does that excuse the fact that he is abusing and oppressing the women?!

Yes, in certain cases, cultural and moral relativism is applicable. But there are moral absolutes which are unacceptable across the board and invoking moral/cultural relativism doesn't magically make them acceptable.

I need feminism ...

2013-03-08T05:33:00.000-08:00

I need feminism because I would prefer to have injustices relegated to the realms of fiction only.
I need feminism because it keeps me sane to know that there are others out there who see the filth of this world for what it really it.
I need feminism because there isn't a single place in the world where every woman, man, and child raped is not shamed into silence to protect their rapist.
I need feminism because, even in the 21st century, people are satisfied with stewing in their own privilege whilst reading about and paying lip service to honor killings, infanticides, murders, hate crimes, and other horrors that manage to break past their safety bubbles and fall upon their ears.
There are way too many reasons in this world to count or even list in favor of feminism and dismantling the status quo. The progress of a society is measured by the number of people that are covered by it's umbrella of justice.

I don't know if I would have survived in a world without feminism. If I wasn't aware of what I was missing, I might have adapted to the world presented to me and survived. I would have been angry, abused, depressed, and terrified but I may have survived.
I was however born in a world in which it already existed and benefited me in a number of small ways. So even if I disown it and claim that I don't need feminism, it won't make too much of a difference in my life as a privileged middle class female. In fact, from what I gather, it may be beneficial for me (specifically) to disown it. The world needs feminism though, if it is to work towards social justice and progress. I would rather stand with a movement that seeks to avert and punish injustices, then with a status quo that establishes them as unquestionable inevitabilities.

The world needs feminism because enough is enough. It is time to take the unenlightened oppressor class to task for their prejudices.
And I need feminism because I, for the life of me, cannot figure out a decent reason why people need to cling to their prejudice, ignorance, and greed.

A beginner's take on cultural appropriation ...

2013-03-05T02:25:00.001-08:00

It is only recently that I have been introduced to the concept of cultural appropriation. I have been browsing through tumblr pages looking for interesting material and I found blogs denouncing, as racist, practices of white western women using elements like bindis, saris, mendis, etc for fashion and profit.

It’s a rather interesting concept. Basically, from my understanding, cultural appropriation is when elements of an oppressed culture are adopted by another culture. They are generally stripped of their historical/cultural context and promoted in a fashion context. These very elements were at one point used to distinguish and discriminate against the oppressed culture and even after the appropriation, they are considered acceptable only within the context imbued by the adopting culture. This further demeans the oppressed group, not to mention the offense caused by the lack of respect shown towards the original culture.

Whilst I tend to agree that respect needs to be earned, there was a reason that the element in question drew attention and you would have to be really entitled to steal from a culture without paying due respect to it. If you are part of the oppressor culture, then it is very clear why cultural appropriation would be problematic.

I think the tricky part is an oppressed culture stealing from another oppressed culture where neither of the cultures is involved, in some way, in the oppression of the other. I suppose the argument that applies here is that of hypocrisy. As stated in this piece at Pakistani feminist watch, one would be offended by having their culture appropriated; therefore it stands to reason that the same curtsy should be extended to other's cultures.

Apathy in the matter doesn't make the person any less inconsiderate or racist.

If you follow the post linked for the "bindis", you will find further links that do a better job of explaining the phenomenon. I found this video on the matter helpful as well.

Thoughts on intimate relationships from a novice ...

2013-02-25T19:20:00.000-08:00

I suppose by now every single person will have gone through this post which people have speculated to be a satirical joke. A speculation that has been deemed false by many upon further investigation (or so I am told). I don't find it hard to believe that people can hold these moronic beliefs. It is completely conceivable that a man, steeped in his privilege, would entertain such thoughts. I am personally a little envious that I lack the dedication to think these things, even as a joke or in an attempt to understand someone so far removed from who I actually am. Creativity of the sort eludes me still because for years I have thought such trains of thought too useless to indulge.
I have been thinking about relationships for a while though. What kind of things should you look for in a marriage partner? How do you prevent yourself from falling in love with any man that crosses your path? How can people bring themselves to fall in love in an arranged marriage? What kind of mentality supports turning a blind eye to a partners offenses? And I don't mean short comings as a person but rather failings as a partner in a committed relationship.
The second question is a bit of a surprise to me. Someone like me can be fond of people but never experience love. I noticed that the first time I met someone that I was truly attracted to. The thinker in me could not stop analyzing every little word spoken to determine the true nature of the person I was dealing with. Then again, as the internet was our main source of interaction, words were all that I had to work with. I suppose I might not have been interested in the person if I'd met them face to face seeing as how the lies might have been easier to spot. Perhaps it is my lack of exposure that leads to my skepticism. But I have encountered people who appear to be having trouble filtering others. Now that I think about it, falling in love easily is actually something that works to the advantage of arranged marriage, and so does willful ignorance.
I remember reading some articles speculating that falling in love at a new encounter is usually easy, for mating purposes, and after that the couple become distant so as to pursue other targets, such as raising children and earning to survive. I personally think it is the mystery of strangers which allows you to project your ideal onto them that makes it easy to fall in love. Technically you are not in love with the person in front of you, you are in love with the person you want them to be. As time passes, some people are smart enough to pick up on the tell tale signs that highlight the differences between the ideal and the real and people contemplate and decide if the difference is slight or not, to be loved and cherished or discarded. An example would be to discover your partner snores which wakes you at times, possibly a slight that can even be fixed. On the other hand, someone who disrespects you by commanding you what to do might become even more overbearing after the marriage and may prove a bad fit for you. I think it all comes down to paying close attention to the person you are with and by that I do not mean swooning at their smile.
I won't say I understand people because I do not. I won't say I can tell what they are thinking because I do not. But I have been observing people trying to learn from them for a long time. I noticed that as an observer, especially one that abandoned that role whenever I found a person of interest, I ended up neglecting others resulting in misunderstandings. The word misunderstanding being an understatement. You need to know how much time your lover/spouse will need and this will probably factor into the search. There are different people of varying needs after all. Some people want to be showered with lost of affection continuously. Others are satisfied with generous amounts of affection at specific intervals. That sort of thing.
I don't really think a person can have both love and marriage. Or, at least, most people can't have both. It is okay to desire both I suppose but realistically speaking, it is unlikely to happen. So I prefer to separate the concept of lovers from spouses. What you would want in a lover is entirely different from what you should want from a spouse because they both fulfill different needs.
A spouse helps out with the finances, housework, and child care. A lover's primary concern is with pleasure and company. Of course, these two qualities are desirable in a spouse as well, but to a different extent because of the different dynamics. Cheating in a lover can be acceptable. Cheating with a spouse, perhaps not so much. Although I suppose those arguments could be reversed. Cheating with a lover can be unacceptable because you are more emotionally attached to them. Cheating with a spouse is acceptable because they have a greater presence in your life and serve a greater purpose. This is a subjective decision though - what a person will and will not find acceptable in a spouse.
I find that as far as filtering people to search for "the one", one should start with chemistry. Good chemistry is important and impossible to learn. Everything else on the other hand, not so much. Determine what would be a turn off for you and are absolute deal breakers. Test the waters for these deal breakers and move on if you get an undesired response. For a feminist, for example, a person who belittles women and makes light of their struggle is a cad and they would not tolerate it. So if a person (spouse/lover) were to demonstrate these attitude towards the person, regardless of chemistry, it would be a deal breaker. I think indulging yourself in the chemistry too much before testing for the deal breakers might make it difficult to break the deal later because of the vested emotional attachment. Of course, if you only mean for the relationship to be temporary, then it's okay to indulge first and let the deal breaker surface later.

I find only one thing useful for myself though and that is instinct. I have always trusted my instincts and even if they have led me to do some really stupid things sometimes, they have always been good to me for most of my life. And they grow sharper still, as time passes and my level of exposure increases. But then again, these instincts have me committed to spinsterhood for life so what do I know.
All I can say is: Listen, observe, learn. Stay sharp and one can maneuver the labyrinths of deceit (which the pursuit of relationships is fraught with) easily.

An Infinite entity necessarily preceding a finite entity

2013-02-25T16:11:00.000-08:00

Watching episode 798 of the Athiest experience, I was intrigued by the comments of the Muslim caller. I am aligned with the response of the hosts of the series. I can see why they arrived at the conclusion that they did but I think the thought process wasn't communicated to the caller properly. By that I mean that the caller was very vested in his own conclusions, so much so that he didn't take pause to contemplate their response, deeming the hosts either incompetent or stubborn. Also, possibly, the hosts weren't able to see why he had a problem accepting their response. Most of the caller's case was special pleading.

Two claims were made:

The deity is infinite
An infinite entity must necessarily precede a finite entity

I think the oversight of the caller was very simple - he could not contemplate a finite entity being preceded by another finite entity. In this way, the example of numbers used by the authors is actually perfect.
Basically the universe as we know it is finite with time as it's fourth dimension.Time is relevant to this universe because we have references with which we can measure it; for example organic decay/growth, change in environment, the movement of the earth, the movement of the sun. Different references are used for different purposes of time. For example light years are used to measure distance between galaxies or the size of galaxies, but the movement of the sun is used to measure the human day. In a universe where it's elements didn't move, i.e. a three dimensional universe, time would be irrelevant to the point of non-existence. An entity that does not exist is basically an entity the does not prove relevant to the universe or materializes in some substantial form for observance. Numbers, for example, are an abstract concept but are relevant to human knowledge and our perception of the universe. Sand may not be relevant (read: of use) but it manifests itself in physical form available for observance.
But even if the concept of time is relevant to this universe, it's existence could be extended beyond the universe. It is simply the case that we will not have a means to measure the passing of time outside the universe deeming it irrelevant or non-existent. If the concept of time is extended outside the universe, which isn't necessary, the question of infinite is provoked. The universe is finite, therefore there must be something outside this finite universe which made its existence possible. And the caller postulates that the entity that made this universe possible must be infinite.
Take the example of the sun. Our lives in comparison to the sun are very short and under it's existence countless generations pass. Basically the experience of time is different. If we didn't know any better, in the absence of current knowledge, we might predict that the sun will continue on for infinite.
In the same way, we currently have knowledge of the properties of the universe but nothing outside of it. We have no knowledge of what came before the universe and what will come after the universe which leads to the concept that there must be something infinite that "created" the big bang.
But what the caller fails to grasp is that there is no need to invoke an infinite event to get a finite event, we can have a number of finite events leading up to other finite events into infinite. Birth can be taken as an example. The existence of a human is preceded and necessitates the existence of at least two other humans (for arguments sake) and so on spiraling into either infinite regression or a first cause. That first cause is then preceded by it's own line of events.
The example of the numbers can be brought into play here. Each individual number is finite but there is an infinite amount of numbers. One finite entity (the number four) is preceded by another finite entity (the number three) which is further preceded by another finite entity (the number two) and so on.
The birth of the universe could have been caused by a finite entity/event or an infinite entity/event and there is no reason to favor one over the other.
I think one of Futurama's episodes provided a very simple hypothesis of what gave birth to the universe. They used a time-travelling machine, through negligent use of which, allowed them to witness the collapse of the universe followed by the birth of a new universe.

An annoying teaser?

2013-02-22T07:54:00.000-08:00

Jessica surveyed the results of her painstaking efforts with smug satisfaction. Really, who else out there was capable of such brilliant machinations which set into motions this sequence of events more complex than even most labyrinths? She could barely contain her glee at the thought how of even the most zealous and judicious individuals would be unable to trace this daunting fabrication back to her. Contemplating the ramifications of her wanton actions brought to surface fleeting doubts leaving her vacillate. It wasn't too late yet, the kinetics of events could still be stopped and reversed, she had already gathered significant amount of data and could easily qualify her thesis to something tamer. But something was still missing. This material wasn't enough to pacify her ebullient curiosity. What was the missing? As the gears had shifted and her plan had begun to bear fruit, the initial response had palliated her burning desire for answers creating a state of saccharine mental calm. Time, however, kept moving and the state melted into annoyance at the continued banality of the test subjects. In a population of 110,000, one would expect at least one person of interest to separate themselves from the claws of human instinct and yet these obdurate masses seemed dedicated to disappointing her. She had to admit though; it had been amusing to watch the iconoclasts drift into a chasm of despair at having observed the logical conclusions of their criticisms. She had maintained their grievances as central to her project because the thought of forcing them out of their privilege had seemed rather entertaining. Their abject denial of current circumstance was equally entertaining as they struggled to maintain their positions at the expense of major cognitive dissonance.

The cacophony of chaos brought her attention back to the present and she brushed off her consideration of aborting the project mid way. Certainly with all that has happened, it is worth-while to continue the project on to completion. If she were to abandon to now, how would she discover that one person, if any did exist, within the crowd who was her intellectual equal? Her companion Rose had just returned from her net dive and appeared excited.

“The response is just as you predicted. That narcissistic CEO of CoreTech is unabashedly gunning for power planning on riding the wave of popularity. The prime minister and his guards won’t be able to stand their ground against these foreign assassins he’s having flown in. Much as I fancy this discontent in the city, I abhor the idea of him in power, of all people. Please tell me you’re going to do something about it?”

Jessica flashed a glance in tacit agreement to her weary friend. “Having him is power in the current environment pretty much seals that fate of this city into a dictatorship. That would make continuing work very difficult for us. I have a maneuver in mind, hackneyed though it may be”

Rose nodded her head indicating understanding before turning back to the system for a second dive. Jessica observed rose curious about the silence surrounding her usually garrulous friend. “Is something the matter?”

Another writing practice project that I tried my hand at yesterday. I picked out the first word of each letter in the Word Smart Collection until I had 26 words to work with to compose a random extract. I think I keep having trouble sticking to third person in this piece. I'm definitely more comfortable with first person narration as compared to third person narration or perhaps I just need more practice.

I can't say it turned out very well. It isn't bad, but it isn't all that great either.

The Morning After

2013-02-22T07:39:00.000-08:00

Another rough night had left me feeling overwhelmed. The grandfather clock in the dining room on the first floor only aided the pounding headache from the hangover. That has to be the last time I would let my friends convince me into spending nine straight hours at a rock concert even if it was four years since the last time I heard “System of a down” perform live. Reaching for the phone I slipped on my bunny slippers making my way downstairs for breakfast. The curtains had been pulled shut so pulling open the door flooded the room with sudden light temporarily blinding me. Despite my body screaming against my attempts to return to regular daily activities, I couldn't help but chuckle at my faint recollections. Two pills of painkillers and this was going to be a good day after all.

I've been feeling a bit of a writers block recently, especially with respect to topics of interest and good fiction so I thought I'd browse through some online fan-fiction sites for contests that I can use for practice. The above segment is for the contest at fanstory.com.

The assignment was to write a story that is between 100 and 150 words. The trick is to use the following words: breakfast, light, rock, phone, clock

So how did I do?

Reading "Predatory Game" by Christine Feehan

2013-02-17T19:34:00.001-08:00

There was a book sale near the library with library books that were removed from circulation were on sale so i breezed through them looking for titles that I was familiar with but hadn't read or didn't own. I made the mistake of finding this title fascinating. I figured it had to be a serial killer/murder mystery type thing but it turned out to be lame erotica fiction steeped in stereotypes and sexist setups.

The girl is a highly trained killing machine and for some reason she has the innocence of a child? Really, why is it always innocence and beauty that is prized in women? And of course, the guy has to be a well built (read super muscular) ultra-aggressive alpha male. Let's not forget how he calculatingly tries to get what he wants. The whole woman wanting to run away and him controlling and coaxing her to stay is beyond scary. Even if he had reason to believe that she liked him, that doesn't give him the right to manipulate her into staying with her. The theme of him knowing better then her is clearly slapped across the entire text. I find it beyond repulsive how possessive he is of her when they are only friends. I suppose just because he's giving her a place to stay, he somehow has acquired the right to have a say in her life. I can see how friends could weigh in on a person's life but going so far as to be that intrusive?

The concept of male domination is mentioned in there as if it's the most natural thing in the world. This concept is built upon with him making more and more decisions for her and coaxing more out of her. I can't even begin to comment on his lateral decision to fire her from the job because he didn't want her working anymore, even at his own radio station. The only thing keeping her next to him for an extended period of time appears to be pity, although I suppose that is meant to be taken as a secondary reason and not the primary. He is time and again portrayed as a predator who can protect "his woman" even whilst he is in a wheelchair. What is with this not showing vulnerability or showing fake vulnerability to gain brownie points when it comes to men?

I especially found fascinating the men's little conversation about women being unreasonable and hormonal during pregnancy and PMS, and incapable of logical thought and prone to irrational outbursts. It's almost revolting how they try to pass of the whole "women shouldn't have guns and be able to be lethal because they belong in the kitchen cooking, being pregnant, and just being cute for us men" as a joke. It could a tremendous amount of willpower to keep reading the book after that.

The first few erotica scenarios were interesting or, at the very least, bearable but the ensuing scenes just became to very repetitive and mundane and just plain annoying. Have I mentioned yet the obsession with portraying a woman's first time as magically and elating? I wonder if even teenagers nowadays would buy that seeing as how people in general are smart enough to know better. Some of the sex even brushes really close to rape if it doesn't venture into that territory completely. Their first time was after she had tried to run away from him and he forcefully kept her from leaving, coaxing her to stay and convincing her that her place is beside him. I mean, they mention that he looked down at her with her head in her arm, tear stains on her face and then proceeded to screw her. They didn't use the term "screw" though, that's my own innovation.

I suppose I could go on but that would only rile me up, it's enough that I had to read the book so I'm not going to spend too much time reflecting on it.
In conclusion: Not worth it. There is way better material out there. I'm just glad I didn't spend too much money on it.

Yay ... My First Cat Fight!

2013-02-11T20:42:00.001-08:00

Well, the first that I can remember anyway. Chances are I'll forget it soon enough though. It's probably a good idea that my mind purges itself of irrelevant and stressful thoughts.

I don't know if it's healthy to comment on a thread with the express intent of attacking a specific person. I don't remember if I used to do that before, I know I vented on people in person or messages at times, but I've grown out of that annoying habit for the most part.

-Sigh- The teenage me has left so many embarrassing memories for me really.

Apparently this cousin (the one in pink) was the one I argued with over who was better: Samurais or Ninjas. I don't remember why I may have argued but whatever.

I'm afraid that I still have plenty of quirks still, one of which is being bitchy when attacked. So I'm going to go ahead and post that fun conversation all over here.

I am happy about having apologized though. I don't remember much, but I do recall saying some pretty stupid things and that is just plain wrong.

So without further ado ...

This was the original post on which the conversation ensued ...

Well, I hope you enjoy it and find it as funny and catty as I did ...

Feel free to discuss the ironies and Ad Hominems present but refrain from indulging in either yourself. :)

Trust and Relationships(friendships)

2012-12-13T19:48:00.000-08:00

How do you know you can trust someone? You can't know the details of a situation unless you poke and prod into something that is none of your business. How much of your intrusion is acceptable? When do you cross the boundaries? Should you keep pressing until you cross some boundaries?

I am the type of person who observes others from a distance. I don't like to confide in people generally but I'd like for people to be able to confide in me. It would seem that a lot of people do end up confiding in me occasionally. I suppose I do test the waters at times and evasively ask questions to determine what a person's position is. I'm probably flattering myself here and I'm probably not that opaque but I do try to keep my beliefs to myself until I know what a person's reaction will be to them. Or perhaps it's more like the topics just don't come up for discussion.
I've recently tried to form social relationships but I don't know how you can know you can trust someone. In my experience, I find it easier to trust people that I have major beliefs common with. It's also easier to trust people that talk a lot, perhaps because I feel that it's difficult to make stuff up and faking it at that rate. Inconsistencies will arise and you'd be able to pick them out.

Of course, in a lot of cases, trust isn't an issue. The distance of the relationship somewhat limits the amount of trust I need to place in a person. For example, if I talk to a stranger, it's irrelevant what I tell them, especially if I meet them on the internet. I haven't bothered lying to people I meet online, it's just that there is an amount of distance between me and them that it would not affect my relationship with other people. I guess it's about control and fear. So even if I was open to them initially, I don't feel that trust factors into the discussion because if they are assholes, I can just cut them out of my life and if they're intelligent and considerate individuals, I can open up more and possibly deepen the relationship. It like knowing that you don't have to meet that person again, if you don't want to, leads to you taking more risks.

Not knowing how people perceive stuff leaves me at a loss. I think my reading habit might have impacted my ability to form positive relationships with others. I've been reading so many books where all the characters' thoughts are clearly laid out and you can tell what kind of person they are. Then there is the matter of detail. You spend so much time with the character in so many different settings and possibly with a wide variety of emotions in play. But in real life, that kind of thing takes time. In fiction, they only narrate the stories of relationships that will work, be they friendships or romantic relationships, but in real life, that is not a guarantee. You need to decide what is acceptable, what level of distance you want to maintain from the person, what is a deal breaker and what isn't, etc. All this without factoring in the fact that the other person is probably also considering all these things.

How do you decide who to trust? How much can you trust them? What topics can you trust them about? Trust probably doesn't even factor into a relationship where you just want to be a listener. How do you upgrade that to a relationship where you can confide in the other person as well? What if people don't want to talk about your problems? Or you end up too self-centered and fail to hear out the other person's problems?

Do you think people can instinctively pick up on who is being honest with them? But this instinct is probably anchored by your biases towards the person as well as your life's experiences. How much does respect factor into trust considerations? I find it easier to trust and evaluate people I respect even though they are no less likely to lie then the people that I don't respect or am neutral towards. But then again, respect requires a certain level of rapport.

So many questions and so few answers ... I'm at a bit of a loss here.

Reflecting on some past mistakes

2012-12-13T18:31:00.000-08:00

Recently I've been reading the posts on this website "everyday sexism" which attempts to document the experiences of women world wide with sexism. I think the objective is to gauge how wide spread and common sexism is and how it permeates every aspect of peoples lives. The stories range from persistent sexist jokes and comments to actual rapes, sexual harassment, and street harassment.

Why is it so hard for people to maintain and respect other's boundaries?!

Reading this brought to mind my clashes with sexist mindsets but then again, I'm from a country where misogyny is the status-quo so that much is to be expected. My experience was better then most women around me though since my father believed in equality of the sexes.

I've made mistakes myself. For a while I wondered if someone who attempted rape should be forgiven because others intervened and stopped it and the victim themselves want to forgive them. Should you still harbor hostility towards the person after the victim has decided to forgive them? After giving it some thought, I realized that supporting the victim is a separate matter for holding the perpetrator responsible for their actions. I mean it is a very serious matter and just because they failed to fully execute their intent does not exonerate them somehow. It limits the damage to the victim, but it doesn't diminish their guilt. Plus it kind of leads to a situation where the victim is encouraged to forgive the perpetrator because that would save the perpetrator from becoming a social pariah. So I concluded that a person doesn't have to forgive behavior like that just because the victim does and they have every right to hold them in contempt. The victim forgiving the perpetrator might even be part of the healing process. Considerations of how the perpetrator's life will be ruined are also irrelevant to the consequences of their actions.

Another thing that came to my mind was an incident from seventh grade. This classmate of mine fell from a chair and I started laughing. I don't remember if other's laughed but she felt hurt about it. She informed the teachers about it. At that time, I also happened to fall over from a chair. I had this habit of tipping my chair on two legs and swinging it. My immediate reaction was to start laughing as well. I wonder if it was out of spite because the memory of other girl was still fresh in my memory. Or maybe it's because I didn't want to be hypocritical. But now reflecting back on it, it was still insensitive of me to laugh at her. Just because I can laugh it off, doesn't mean that she should be expected to as well. She doesn't have to live up to my standards to get the minimum level of courtesy. I mean I really should have checked to make sure she wasn't hurt too badly before making light of the situation.

I think this situation jumped to my mind because it is an example of a mentality that fails to take into consideration the situation and the perspective of the other person and gives priority to the individual's (in this case me) own experiences.

Rape Axe - Practical implications ...

2012-08-04T04:08:00.000-07:00

I read this article a few months back about a condom with teeth that I happened to encounter again recently. The name of the condom is Rape Axe and it is rumored to prevent rape by clamping onto the man's penis upon penetration. It then remains there making it impossible for him to even walk or pee and the only way to remove it is to visit a doctor.

On the facebook thread of the post there was an argument going on about how this product is anti-feminist which confused me a bit. I hadn't actually given much thought to the practical implications of the product or whether it would even be able to prevent rape like it claimed. The appeal of this product isn't in fact prevention of rape, it is revenge. The justice system has failed women time and again when it comes to capturing and sentencing rapists. So in an unjust world skewed in favor of the rapist, a means to take out your frustration of being humiliated and overwhelmed can feel somewhat empowering I suppose.

How it makes women feel safe is beyond me? Or even for that matter how it will prevent rape. As Lara Williams states in her article "Modern chastity belts won't stop rape", it doesn't stop rape but rather cuts it short. Is it supposed to scare men into baking off? That knowing what will happen to their penis upon penetration would lead them to rethink these actions? But in that case, shouldn't the possibility of spending jail time be sufficient or failing that, the social disapproval that they may face. Oh wait, that doesn't happen, the social disapproval that is. So it would seem that rape axe is symbolic of society's failure to bring justice and protection to the women in it's society. It is symbolic of the little effort society wants to exert in dealing with this problem by pushing the onus of prevention back onto the victim.

Rape Axe will not deter rape through fear of repercussions because anticipating a rape axe, the rapist may simply insert a dildo like object to remove it before continuing. In the event of a gang rape, the rape axe will only impact one individual while the rest will be free to continue. Not to mention it doesn't even begin to address the question of anal rape and fellatio. And what of marital rape? Will the wife be wearing a rape axe anticipating rape from her husband? Then there is the question of women meeting with lovers. What if you initially consent to taking things all the way and preemptively remove the rape axe (or is she going to remove it in front of the lover whilst apologizing for thinking negatively of him?) but things go sour later and you withdraw that consent?
At first I thought that it might help capture some rapists since they would need to visit a doctor to have it removed but that really depends on the doctor they visit, doesn't it?!
Three aspects of it that I had failed to consider but were addressed in the article are: 1) what if this tool is used to hurt men that some women have grievances with?, 2) rape axe is a product that anticipates rape keeping women in a state of constant fear and expectation, and 3) rape axe treats rape like a slight and not the significant psychological and physical trauma that it is.
Since the primary appeal of Rape Axe is revenge, it is actually quite easy to lure an unsuspecting man into sex. This also calls into question the validity of automatically assuming that all men who show up at a doctor's to remove the rape-axe are in fact rapists giving the doctors just cause not to report the incident. Another hindrance in that rape conviction where the rapist claims to be the victim instead. Of course such circumstances would be limited but will exist never-the-less.
The second one is a bit more serious. Every human has a right to safety and security and this includes a psychological state where you have peace of mind. An item that constantly reminds you of how around the next corner there could be a rapist and she has to take precautions to at least punish this rapist if nothing else will be certain to drive people insane. Who wants to live their life constantly looking over their shoulder?
Another thing that rape axe fails to take into consideration is that men can be raped as well and women can rape as well. If women are the rapists, they'll be using a dildo (or a similar tool) and rape axe won't hinder them one bit.