In the scheme of things, female empowerment is just kicking off. Now that the Gaia principle has been safely miniaturised into girl power, there is space for an honest-to-God female middle class to take up their rightful places.
I've met a representative sample of the first-wavers and they are entrancing people. They have a sense of the mysticism of their accomplishments and generally exist completely outside of popular culture. If they hadn't they wouldn't have made it - unfortunately many of them never bother to reproduce.
Today, Fiona Sturges, a fine journalist, managed to completely miss the vital points in her i-arts column:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/why-does-reality-tv-hate-women-2213740.html
In it she lists the numerous indignities and chauvinisms of reality TV and chastises the programme makers, erroneously implying that shows such as Wife Swap, How Clean Is Your House, How To Look Good Naked etc. are male fantasy projects.
I have never met a heterosexual man who regularly watches anything like this excreta. I can list for you (if you care to contact me privately) around twenty women I know who do. This is not anecdote or skewed male superiority talking. Look at the ratings demography. This is female fantasy.
The point of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding, is to allow women to feel superior to other women. This isn't strange or new. This phenomenon has been around forever and isn't going anywhere. Let us take (for my convenience) the works of Moliere and Shakespeare. These are among the earliest European works I know that employ the feminine character I mean to bring to your attention.
My favourite Shakespearean woman is Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing. She is witty, beautiful and is resolved never to marry. But when it comes to the matters of life, death and love, she goes full-on Gypsy:
Is a not approved in the height a villain, that 300
hath slandered, scorned, dishonoured my kinswoman?
O that I were a man! What, bear her in hand until
they come to take hands; and then, with public
accusation, uncovered slander, unmitigated rancour,
--O God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart 305
in the market-place.
MAAN - IV, i
The purpose of this display is not just cathartic. By acting in such a crazed fashion, she goads her suitor Benedick into mortal combat with his friend.
In Moliere's Misanthrope, Célimène with whom the protagonist Alceste is in love, seemingly spends her entire day performing spirited diatribes against the last person to attend on her for the benefit of her present attendee.
It would be very easy to say that these examples represent antiquated forms of female behaviour. They do. That in itself doesn't mean that it isn't also a contemporary form.
It would also be very easy to say that they have no relationship with the spectacles of reality TV. Unfortunately, they do.
Feminism began with the critique of patriarchy. Men were exposed as a bunch of sex-obsessed, neurotically competitive tribalists with a master-slave concept of romance. So we did our best to change. Where was the critique of the matriarch? Were the women of the past blameless? Or were there collaborators? To their credit, Fathers in the latter 20th century usually stepped back out of the way of our daughters. But what about mothers? What did they do?
Well lets see... dressed them in pink, bought them the same old kitchen-toys, taught them to cook, discouraged sport or books... and generally drummed it into them that they had far too many privileges to ever complain about anything.
This is anecdotal: I saw this all throughout my childhood and later in life. Women of my generation seemed nonplussed by an ineffable unhappiness that haunted them even though they had exceeded all the achievements of their mothers by their early twenties.
And who is it that watches the shows of Gok Wan and Shitface McKeith? UNHAPPY PEOPLE. Unhappy people looking for consolation in the deeper misery of others. I think it's time that Sturges revisited Feminist philosophy to take a closer look at the repressive influence of the matriarch.
Monday, 14 February 2011
Saturday, 8 January 2011
How Manuel is responsible for the Coalition
I blame Andrew Sachs. I blame Andrew Sachs for the impending Murdoch takeover of BSkyB. I blame Andrew Sachs for the fact that I can't listen to Jonathan Ross on a Saturday morning. But principally, I blame Andrew Sachs for the current public-school junta who are occupying the front benches in Parliament. If he had turned up to talk on that fateful morning there would have been no credible structure upon which to build the fictive governing consensus.
I don't know how well you remember it, but at the time DC was little more than a young looking facsimile of Ken Clarke with none of the personality. Even up to the date of the election there was complete confusion as to what he intended to do on 99.9% of government business.
His problem was that Conservatism itself is unpopular in Britain. It has been since '84 with only the end of the Cold War buoying them up into the '90s. There are very good reasons that the right were marginalised over that last 20 years or so. They are, briefly:
• Belief in the 'invisible hand' theory, which became completely nonsensical when the market globalised.
• Intolerance for all who are not stick-up-the-arse, middle-class reactionaries.
• Contempt for those who do not subscribe to a material conception of well-being.
and
• Contempt for the institution of Government.
If Conservatives had their way, Government would be limited completely to international relations. There would be no welfare state whatsoever. The only concession Cameron has ever made from a Thatcherite agenda is that even if homosexuals and urban youth are totally vile, they may yet find redemption. Thanks Dave.
So how has this Government maintained any vestige of legitimacy? Andrew... Fucking... Sachs.
Sachsgate was the opening salvo of a media war which sought to portray good, old Blighty as being under attack from satyrs and sodomites. People with no respect and no morality. As if alternative comedy were somehow up for discussion after 20 years. Overnight, Frankie Boyle went from the funniest thing since funny began, to a villainous and hateful gargoyle. He was forced out of his job on Mock the Week regardless of how it was later explained.
The fact that Boyle's type of shock-comedy has its roots in left-wing politics was the subtext that underlay the sham outrage. It led to a parade of Liberal politicians being forced to deliver completely disingenuous condemnations. It’s not like Brand hadn’t spoken about shagging Fergie’s daughters on his show before... it was just a matter of what he had said or done most recently.
Meanwhile the Conservatives, who were ‘offended’ by it, were able to sincerely (and fatuously) express themselves. We hadn’t done that kind of moral outrage for a long time in Britain and the fact that the debate raged on for so long, despite a complete lack of interest from anyone outside power, is a powerful indication that this was a generated spectacle.
And now the BBC is being eviscerated. The grand old Tory press have been publishing stories along the lines of... I don’t know... Marxist conspiracy of lefty salon-dwellers controlling the airwaves... for years. The difference was that the contract for the services of the Murdoch media changed hands from Left to Right.
Paxman recently interviewed Brand and showed him a form that BBC talent must now check to ensure that their content remains within taste guidelines. The problem with Conservatism in culture (as well as politics) is that anything which is not dull is a threat.
This sentiment radiated from the media for so long, it would be easy to confuse the perpetrators with murderers or despots. The fact is I like Jonathan Ross, Frankie Boyle, Russell Brand, Sacha Baron Cohen and Simon Amstell. I used to enjoy watching the BBC. The value of their work is that by expressing an outlandish idea, it puts the reality in proportion. You don't then have to believe in that expression or act upon it. You certainly don't have to if you weren't the one to express it.
Having moments ago Googled the most recent attack on the BBC, I find that the Telegraph has aided the odious Mumsnet to attack a recent cot-death storyline on Eastenders. The story seems to have been that one woman’s baby tragically passes away and in her grief, she swapped the dead child with Kat Moon’s baby. Apparently, no one is capable of telling the difference between the children. This is terrible in the traditional sense in which all soap plotlines are terrible, but there are people out there who are claiming to be offended by it. They are not offended by it. They are part of an organised effort to neuter the greatest media institution ever to have existed.
And what was the material damage done? A couple of stomachs were turned. The same effect as a slightly milky cup of tea.
What this has given the Right is a platform of moral outrage, which allows them to imply their real prejudices without actually having to state them. If they were honest they would say, 'We don't like Russell Brand because he was a promiscuous drug addict and he proves that promiscuous drug addicts are not demons.' Alternatively they might say, 'We don't like the BBC because most of their content is based on progressive, liberal views.'
The reason for this is that creative people are instinctively liberal and compassionate. I can't authoritatively say why this should be so, but even in Murdoch's own companies, the truly creative content is statedly anti-Murdoch.
What the coalition have done is express nothing but the most banal and uncontroversial sentiment while in their actions they have pursued the most extreme right-wing agenda in 20 years. They have sought to distort reality in order to materially, intellectually and spiritually impoverish the United Kingdom. The very opposite of what the performers did comedically.
I don't know how well you remember it, but at the time DC was little more than a young looking facsimile of Ken Clarke with none of the personality. Even up to the date of the election there was complete confusion as to what he intended to do on 99.9% of government business.
His problem was that Conservatism itself is unpopular in Britain. It has been since '84 with only the end of the Cold War buoying them up into the '90s. There are very good reasons that the right were marginalised over that last 20 years or so. They are, briefly:
• Belief in the 'invisible hand' theory, which became completely nonsensical when the market globalised.
• Intolerance for all who are not stick-up-the-arse, middle-class reactionaries.
• Contempt for those who do not subscribe to a material conception of well-being.
and
• Contempt for the institution of Government.
If Conservatives had their way, Government would be limited completely to international relations. There would be no welfare state whatsoever. The only concession Cameron has ever made from a Thatcherite agenda is that even if homosexuals and urban youth are totally vile, they may yet find redemption. Thanks Dave.
So how has this Government maintained any vestige of legitimacy? Andrew... Fucking... Sachs.
Sachsgate was the opening salvo of a media war which sought to portray good, old Blighty as being under attack from satyrs and sodomites. People with no respect and no morality. As if alternative comedy were somehow up for discussion after 20 years. Overnight, Frankie Boyle went from the funniest thing since funny began, to a villainous and hateful gargoyle. He was forced out of his job on Mock the Week regardless of how it was later explained.
The fact that Boyle's type of shock-comedy has its roots in left-wing politics was the subtext that underlay the sham outrage. It led to a parade of Liberal politicians being forced to deliver completely disingenuous condemnations. It’s not like Brand hadn’t spoken about shagging Fergie’s daughters on his show before... it was just a matter of what he had said or done most recently.
Meanwhile the Conservatives, who were ‘offended’ by it, were able to sincerely (and fatuously) express themselves. We hadn’t done that kind of moral outrage for a long time in Britain and the fact that the debate raged on for so long, despite a complete lack of interest from anyone outside power, is a powerful indication that this was a generated spectacle.
And now the BBC is being eviscerated. The grand old Tory press have been publishing stories along the lines of... I don’t know... Marxist conspiracy of lefty salon-dwellers controlling the airwaves... for years. The difference was that the contract for the services of the Murdoch media changed hands from Left to Right.
Paxman recently interviewed Brand and showed him a form that BBC talent must now check to ensure that their content remains within taste guidelines. The problem with Conservatism in culture (as well as politics) is that anything which is not dull is a threat.
This sentiment radiated from the media for so long, it would be easy to confuse the perpetrators with murderers or despots. The fact is I like Jonathan Ross, Frankie Boyle, Russell Brand, Sacha Baron Cohen and Simon Amstell. I used to enjoy watching the BBC. The value of their work is that by expressing an outlandish idea, it puts the reality in proportion. You don't then have to believe in that expression or act upon it. You certainly don't have to if you weren't the one to express it.
Having moments ago Googled the most recent attack on the BBC, I find that the Telegraph has aided the odious Mumsnet to attack a recent cot-death storyline on Eastenders. The story seems to have been that one woman’s baby tragically passes away and in her grief, she swapped the dead child with Kat Moon’s baby. Apparently, no one is capable of telling the difference between the children. This is terrible in the traditional sense in which all soap plotlines are terrible, but there are people out there who are claiming to be offended by it. They are not offended by it. They are part of an organised effort to neuter the greatest media institution ever to have existed.
And what was the material damage done? A couple of stomachs were turned. The same effect as a slightly milky cup of tea.
What this has given the Right is a platform of moral outrage, which allows them to imply their real prejudices without actually having to state them. If they were honest they would say, 'We don't like Russell Brand because he was a promiscuous drug addict and he proves that promiscuous drug addicts are not demons.' Alternatively they might say, 'We don't like the BBC because most of their content is based on progressive, liberal views.'
The reason for this is that creative people are instinctively liberal and compassionate. I can't authoritatively say why this should be so, but even in Murdoch's own companies, the truly creative content is statedly anti-Murdoch.
What the coalition have done is express nothing but the most banal and uncontroversial sentiment while in their actions they have pursued the most extreme right-wing agenda in 20 years. They have sought to distort reality in order to materially, intellectually and spiritually impoverish the United Kingdom. The very opposite of what the performers did comedically.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Noun * S: (n) horsefly, cleg, clegg, horse fly (large swift fly the female of which sucks blood of various animals)
Nick Clegg wrote the most fatuous pile of nonsense seen in some time for the Guardian yesterday:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/poverty-plus-pound-not-enough
The key claim justifying Coalition policy is not that we can't afford current welfare arrangements, but that 'The welfare system is reinforcing social segregation.'
This is a claim that has been repeated ad nauseum over the last few months, but I haven't heard or read anything that backs up this statement. The fact is that society is segregated, has been segregated and (in all liklihood) will continue to be segregated into those who have the skill and willingness to contribute to the economy and those who do not.
What the Coalition don't acknowledge is that those on the other side of the segregation do not live in the modern world with its services and officials. Rather they live in a world without the possibility of peace of mind, run by men (and I mean men) of the execrable stamp of Jim Devine. The middle classes own councils and utelise them for their own ends.
Meanwhile, the essential services of social mobility such as the railways and universitys are so remote from the 'workless households' that entrance to their precincts immediately identifies them as the other. This is not entirely down to the trappings of poverty such as shabby dress and accent.
It's partly the estranging effect of drugs. We're all on drugs. All of us. Not the one-in-four that shows up in surveys. All of us. The numbers are only marginally less in middle-class households but the system of euphemism is now so sophisticated that the blend is seamless. The over the counter and underground markets for drugs are so vast that they reach every household in our country. Surely then this should be a meeting point between our segregated societies. Why is it not?
This linguistic division is the real segregation in our society. We are all the same, share the same aspirations and pass our time in the same basic patterns but the people in control of the language distort this reality to the point where the underclass (an example of such coinage) are forced into a false identity as dialectical foreigners.
We confine our fellows to the same category as asylum seekers and aliens. I well remember being taught that the language I learned from my parents was not acceptable in my primary school. Why do so many poor kids line up for the X-Factor and pursue courses in media? Because performance of acceptable language is the first lesson they are taught in our schools - they are forbidden to participate until they make it through this hoop. And lo and behold - what has united the popular (and other) figures in our political discourse over the last quarter of a century? Elocution.
His Wikipedia page makes the point that Nick Clegg is multilingual: he speaks English, Dutch, French, German, and Spanish. Unfortunately his gift of translation has not given him the insight required to communicate with his own countrymen before condemning them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/poverty-plus-pound-not-enough
The key claim justifying Coalition policy is not that we can't afford current welfare arrangements, but that 'The welfare system is reinforcing social segregation.'
This is a claim that has been repeated ad nauseum over the last few months, but I haven't heard or read anything that backs up this statement. The fact is that society is segregated, has been segregated and (in all liklihood) will continue to be segregated into those who have the skill and willingness to contribute to the economy and those who do not.
What the Coalition don't acknowledge is that those on the other side of the segregation do not live in the modern world with its services and officials. Rather they live in a world without the possibility of peace of mind, run by men (and I mean men) of the execrable stamp of Jim Devine. The middle classes own councils and utelise them for their own ends.
Meanwhile, the essential services of social mobility such as the railways and universitys are so remote from the 'workless households' that entrance to their precincts immediately identifies them as the other. This is not entirely down to the trappings of poverty such as shabby dress and accent.
It's partly the estranging effect of drugs. We're all on drugs. All of us. Not the one-in-four that shows up in surveys. All of us. The numbers are only marginally less in middle-class households but the system of euphemism is now so sophisticated that the blend is seamless. The over the counter and underground markets for drugs are so vast that they reach every household in our country. Surely then this should be a meeting point between our segregated societies. Why is it not?
This linguistic division is the real segregation in our society. We are all the same, share the same aspirations and pass our time in the same basic patterns but the people in control of the language distort this reality to the point where the underclass (an example of such coinage) are forced into a false identity as dialectical foreigners.
We confine our fellows to the same category as asylum seekers and aliens. I well remember being taught that the language I learned from my parents was not acceptable in my primary school. Why do so many poor kids line up for the X-Factor and pursue courses in media? Because performance of acceptable language is the first lesson they are taught in our schools - they are forbidden to participate until they make it through this hoop. And lo and behold - what has united the popular (and other) figures in our political discourse over the last quarter of a century? Elocution.
His Wikipedia page makes the point that Nick Clegg is multilingual: he speaks English, Dutch, French, German, and Spanish. Unfortunately his gift of translation has not given him the insight required to communicate with his own countrymen before condemning them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)