I was just woken up early on a Sunday morning (7:30 is early for a Sunday) by a phone call from Goa where it is obviously sunny, and I was told about a chocolate mousse tan. I sleepily looked out of my own window here in London, and it is snowing like I have never seen here before! And this is the 6th of April, we are more than two weeks into official spring. All winter went by with not a single flake of snow appearing anywhere, and now? The snowfall doesn't even show the slightest sign of letting up! We truly have fucked things up with the climate. I do not know how much the weather cycles have been affected in the developing or under-developed countries, but I certainly do hope that these developed countries suffer more of the wrath of this global screw up they have caused. Only fair, I like to think, even though it does make living here unpleasant. Like one needed more reasons to make it unpleasant here. I mean, the kids on the streets alone are quite enough... I really don't think I have ever even heard of a worse generation of youngsters who are empowered with unreasonable rights that they regularly abuse without any sense of responsibility. They should all be rounded up and put in Auschwitz or some such, if you ask me, and oh, they should be sterilised before that so that the vermin don't spread. As it is, it seems like so many 15-16 year olds are getting knocked up in this place all the time.
Anyway, nasty road to go down way too early in the morning, when the world outside my window is covered in a serene soft white layer. For the record, for those who think that each snow flake is unique is... well, there are actually about 80 different kinds.
For those of you who don't know who Max Mosley is, he is the (maybe outgoing) president of FIA, the body that governs motor racing worldwide. And he is currently in the soup, since a tabloid earlier this week published reports of his bedroom antics, which included some (or maybe considerable, who cares?) Nazi role playing. The matter gathers more gravity because his father was the founder of the British Union of Fascists, and Adolf attended his parents' wedding in person. So his Nazi role playing with hookers in the privacy of his room has prompted calls for his immediate resignation, he could not be present for this weekend's F1 race at Bahrain, and he is being criticised from left, right and centre, by auto companies and F1 drivers, among others.
Now I have some serious issues with this whole deal. Why does what a person does in his bedroom reflect on what he does in the boardroom? I mean, he is not bringing the hookers to work with him, neither does he ask any F1 driver to give him the Nazi salute. So long as he does his job well, why should the public knowledge of his sexual fetishes reflect poorly on his professionalism? By extension then, all people who indulge in, for instance, bondage and domination as a part of their sexual activities should be fired from their jobs. And what are we then to do with women who harbour rape fantasies? Yes, such women do exist. It is only a fantasy, so you can stop raising your eye brows. Anyway, so should they be fired as well? Max did not commit any crime, so why should he be punished? And if someone regards having a Nazi role playing fetish as a crime, I have no sympathy for them. I mean, on another note, I have heard a few Europeans saying (rarely openly obviously) that people need to get over colonialism because it happened long ago. Funny how the same thing doesn't apply to the Holocaust. Anyway, I will let that be for another time. For now, I hope Mr Mosley sues the pants off the nosy intrusive tabloid all the way to bankruptcy. Come on, aren't there more important things around that those in charge of these arse-wipes should be fussing over?
To end on a more pleasant (though infinitely more complicated) note however, the first pregnant man has arrived. Born a girl, Thomas Beatie had a sex change, got married to a woman, sports a beard (not a very good one, in my opinion) and is now pregnant, because he never had his womanly reproductive organs removed. So now, because his wife doesn't have a womb any more, he was artificially inseminated and will produce a baby girl in about three months. This opens a whole new chapter in the field of sexuality and gender studies, despite stupid comments from some media persons (they just "happened" to be women, I suppose) who want this to become a 'trend' that 'catches on' across the world. What I was wondering was, will Thomas lactate?
For the record, it is still snowing.
Posts
8 comments:
In a way you are right, what should it matter what one does, think, feel, (etc) within the privacy of their 'home', 'room', 'mind', (etc). Except there are other equally justifiable points of view (a) and a contextualisation to keep in mind (b), regardless of whether you wish to become aware of it or not.
a.1) as the president of FIA, mosley has a public role, notably as a global representative of a 'sport'. all public personalities forfeit their private lives to some extent, usually dictated by the intrusion of 'others' (i.e. media, snoopers, etc), namely, what can be dug up, found out, etc. Public roles are notorious as, in the ideal form, they are held above what could be deemed as the 'normal'. This is a process of idolisation prevalent in nearly all cultures, to raise individuals as more than ourselves, only to see the expectations crash down when reality sets in of human fallibility or freedom in choosing a lifestyle not conforming to the ideal expected by the 'public'. This invariably ends in a 'morality', which is hypocritical no doubt, but which nonetheless exists. So is it justifiable that the 'public' holds people in authoritative positions to account at a higher level than they themselves would hold themselves, not least in denying their own perversions (which everyone has), conscious or otherwise? Perhaps, and certainly for certain positions it must be so, as it adds a degree of accountability. Perhaps in the case of the FIA president it would matter less.
a.2)while the shoah might have happened half a century ago, colonialism ended more or less a little bit later (50-60s), slavery of the negro (1800s) (as other forms of slavery exist today...) or the mughal invasion south of indus...; anyhow, the point being that these 'events' touch nerves, get manipulated/regurgitated in the living narratives of individuals (like nationalism), so they become easy targets and it becomes 'hard' to dissociate mannerisms or objects (i.e. look up the recent calls for the reintroduction of the german cross as the highest military honour and problems associated with it) from the specific elements of the respective ideologies that led those events. A sort of guilt by association, which is easily manipulated.
a.3) without the intrusion of the outside world within the 'home' and 'privacy' by extension, forms of abuse (physical and psychological), violence against women, etc, would never have been confronted and changes to cultural stereotypes introduced. this is a 'thing' of such a 'good' that it makes the issue all the harder to dismiss on a whim. also, consider that in a way it is a tug of war over control, not least personal freedom, but also the domination of one persons freedom over the freedoms of others.
I think it's one of those cases of there not being a right answer, just valid points of view. Where do you draw the line? certainly not at the level of what you can get away with, which unfortunately is where it is today. Privacy is a contentious issue, especially as individuals (i.e. in london) do not realise just how 'public' their lives are except when they are 'found out' breaking the rules, legal or moral. Therein lies the solution. The problem isn't mosley or the nazi dress, bdsm, fantasies, etc. The problem is the hypocrisy of society as a whole in considering itself liberal when it imposes limits to what the idea of 'liberal' is, refusing to acknowledge how its mindset is shaped by the ideologies and history that came before, not least the religious morality it assumes it has discarded simply by declaring its 'atheistness'. A sort of ignorance born from a refusal to acknowledge its past and the present influences this has, conscious or otherwise.
The second problem is to identify the contours of the issue of privacy, especially the doublespeak of the private/public realms. Many a good progress has been made by intrusions of the public into the private (see above briefly), but certainly, the risk becomes the possibilities that control of populism becomes either a dictatorship of the majority or the subversion of liberalness by behind the scenes manipulation, this does present problems with intrusion of privacy. also, consider how harmless information can be manipulated by those who know how to use it against those who didn't think it mattered. these are all contentious issues.
b) if you think there are no politics within FIA, no boardroom battles, no wars of position (gramsci), then you're naive. strategically, this presented a wonderful opportunity for individuals and/or groups to displace a rival, and why not?
Realpolitik trumps the bullshit of the ignorance masses... :p
hehehe...
Here's what I wanted to say after reading your post:
"This should kick open a fine can of worms (i.e. most of the people who reply to your rants) and leave them free to ecstatically spill out their internal goo all over your post (i.e. their replies)"
But then I came, read about half of the post above before having to stop because I can't afford to have a stroke while at work, and now all I can say is:
"I truly, deeply, sympathize"
But it still is fun though ;)
tengu, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!
other than that, you have said much that i didn't need being said to, for i was already quite aware of most of it. and i said what i did in that awareness. reading much of it was like going to an lecture on a topic that i have a PhD in.
just because people choose to idealise public figures and expect different standards from them doesn't make it right. and if you think it IS right, then you perhaps also think that Billy boy did as much wrong in lying to the congress as he did in having Monica suck him off.
control over freedom? i am all for it, but for fuck's (literally) sake, where i put my dick is no one else's business (except the recipient). there is a term journalists use, its called "public interest", which is distinct from "what interests the public".
anyway, i cease here. to each, our own.
on_trial, thanks for the sympathy, much needed. :p now, i can't wait to throw out the next lot of bait for the worms!
if you have a phd in it, then you ought to express yourself in ways that it shows, and not yapping gibberish along the assumption that it is self evident, for it is not. and if you truly had a phd in it, then you would at least have the humility in understanding perspectives and differing concepts, confronting yourself and your ideas, which you do not, as again you shoot the messenger and stay away from the message. this is a cheap and ignorant approach, as it seeks to dismiss that which it cannot challenge, just like the brute force triumphs and assumes that because it is the dominant, it is the 'better'. 'to each their own' is a conclusive statement, yet you offer no conclusions other than a self-centered approach that omits anything that is not to your whimsical fancy.
i didn't say it is right and you didn't discuss this in your post. pity. pity you have a lack of awareness in the distinction of the actions of billy boy, just as your laziness (because it is just that) cannot go beyond the mere superficiality of the action into the essence of the question. perhaps you might have then discovered, since you would have already known it, like we all always invariably do, that you were asking a non-question, and as kant said, there are no solutions to non-questions. pity indeed, just like it is a pity you can't be asked to have a meaningful exchange.
for the record, 'public interest' is a contrived term, not least for its construction of what it could mean. 'what interests the public'. in the words of our common friend, che'?
tengu, there is a word called brevity that you are certainly no fan of. and a concept of other peoples' time that you seem to have little respect for.
telling me about hypocrisy of the masses or their ignorance and the public/private distinction, stupid idealism, ideological manipulation, doublespeak and all the rest assumes that i never thought of those things, when it is precisely my thoughts on such things that led to me write what i did. of course, tinged with my personal tastes and takes.
if the message be repetitive, i am truly not interested. pitiful? whatever. seriously, your messages are always along the predictable lines: power, constructs, ideology, domination, narratives, subversion, blah, blah, blah.
i am not offering any conclusions because i don't want to, which is what "to each, our own" means. if something goes unchallenged, it doesn't mean it is being dismissed or even that it can't be challenged. in this case, it simply means that i don't think it worth my time to challenge it because i see nothing worth challenging. i don't say my approach is better, or right, or any other such, i merely say it is mine. i didn't even try to ask a question, let alone a non-question, so i don't want any solutions either.
and meaningful exchange? who decides what meaningful is? try find a britney spears fan who wants to have a "meaningful exchange" with you about her music and please indulge him/her. sure would be a pity, i wonder who for, though...
Thanks for writing this.
Welcome for reading this.
Post a Comment