Welcome to Cincity: Debatable

Showing posts with label Debatable. Show all posts

Sunday, 8 November 2015

The 'Power' of Make Up is a double-edged sword. So stop defending it like it's the best thing ever.

In response to: #thepowerofmakeup

Any reasonable person realises that the heart of the make-up industry preys on and encourages women's insecurities to sell their products.

Are your eyebrows thin and sparse? Use this!

Imperfect dark spots? Use this!

Eyelashes short and stumpy? Use this!

There is nothing wrong with having thin and sparse eyebrows until fashion dictates it.

There is nothing wrong with having a few natural dark spots until fashion dictates it.

There is nothing wrong with having short 'stumpy' eyelashes until fashion dictates it.

In relation to this, two things really bug me.

1. Firstly, unless you're Michelle Phan/a make-up artist/equally comfortable going au naturale in public, then you're lying if you say you only wear make-up for yourself and not to look good for other people/satisfy whatever corporation-driven beauty standards are currently trending.

I HATE IT when women go ape-shit defensive on Facebook when somebody actually says "make-up is bad". They'll say something like "shut the fuck up loser and stop telling women what to do"/"pitting women against each other" after aggressively contending that make-up is awesome for boosting self-esteem and making you feel beautiful and empowered. By that reasoning, why not just take it up a notch and get cosmetic/plastic surgery for everything you feel shit about?

I agree that when you have a big night out and you want to cover up something you feel really insecure about, make-up is a very useful tool to help you boost your confidence. I also agree that make-up CAN be a valid expression of individualism (I have a friend who wears glittery green lipstick and paints her eyebrows red). But people who say these things without acknowledging make-up's downsides are in complete fucking denial.

Why do you feel empowered only when you wear make-up? Why can't you feel empowered without make-up? Because you're insecure about how you look naturally. And why is that?

BECAUSE MAKE-UP COMPANIES & A FUCKED UP SOCIETY.

Almost all of our insecurity is systematically built up by the exact same shit fed to you by make-up corporations through their inescapable, ferocious advertising. Maybelline entices you to think that beautiful people are born with it, and 'others' can just use their products i.e. if you use Maybelline products, you too can be 'beautiful' like Adriana Lima (lel). Yeah, thanks Maybelline, a cosmetics company, for 1. setting our beauty standards 2. highlighting our insecurities 3. encouraging us to buy your stuff.

The undeniable truth is that the majority of women don't wear make-up for themselves. Deep down, they DO feel obligated to wear make-up whenever they go out. At work. At parties. Even a trip to the supermarket.

It's why the whole #nomakeupselfie is a fucking thing in the first place. So don't freaking suggest that make-up is a 'solution' to our insecurities... that it's empowering. It's not.

Instead of defending make-up, we should be defending NO make-up.

2. Secondly, from what I've seen on social media, girls younger than ever before are experimenting heavily with make-up. Twelve year olds now feel like they have to wear make-up to look good at school because all the other girls are doing it, and largely because they see pictures and tutorials on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram etc.

While I don't have a personal problem against anyone interested in make-up (and of course, many of my friends are very into it), I WOULD have a problem with society's increasing obsession with make-up if one day, my 13 year old daughter asks me to buy her five different MAC lipsticks and an URBAN DECAY palette because she doesn't want to feel ugly compared to her classmates who all contour their faces with a gazillion different products.

Anyway, I know that scenario ^ is already the norm in many places but I just hope good parenting will give her enough confidence to say "fuck you" to the pressure of wearing make-up in circumstances when she shouldn't have to.

Another thing - more than ever before, men are also being pressured to look good. There are now make-up lines being developed for men and it is largely accepted as fact that no male K-pop star wanders outside without having applied a layer of foundation. On K-pop websites, there are now 'before' and 'after' pictures of male K-pop stars with and without make-up.

THIS IS NOT THE WORLD I WANT TO BE IN, OR WANT MY CHILDREN TO LIVE IN.

ALSO...

Who the fuck wants to wear a billion layers of primer, foundation, highlighter, bronzer, powder, eyeliner, mascara, brow filler every day? HOW DO YOU DO IT??!?!?!

It takes a ridiculous amount of time to put on and take off; it 99% of the time doesn't even feel comfortable because it's heavy and there's always the fear of smudging your make-up or caking it on something else. You basically cannot touch your face when you have that much make-up on and it sucks. You can't rub your eyes when they're itchy or even rest your head on your fist sitting at a table.

God.

End of rant.

Sunday, 9 March 2014

Book: The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother (+ my rants on Chinese parenting)

If you are a parent, you should read this book and then read my blog post. If you are an Asian kid with tiger parents, let's totally empathise about how miserable our childhoods were.

"Unjustified as Mrs. Kazinczy may have been, she was still a teacher, an authority figure, and one of the first things Chinese people learn is that you must respect authority. No matter what, you don't talk back to your parents, teachers, elders." - Amy Chua in The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother

WHAT? WHAAAAAAT?

That is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. And if Amy Chua could see me right now, I would vomit the bok choy and mi goreng I had for lunch all over her book in a furious display of disapproval.

For a Yale law professor who is married to another Yale law professor, this woman can be ridiculously atavistic. One of the overwhelming themes in this 'satirical' auto-biography about raising her daughters is that all ADULTS ARE GODS and even when they're manifestly wrong, children must treat them like they're right i.e. smile and take their shit.

Well....fuck

NO.

I despise this sort of Chinese style parenting and I disagree with the idea of 'respecting' your elders so much that you aren't allowed to speak up and reason with them. If I ever became a mother, I would treat my children like mini-adults, training them to think for themselves and encouraging them to try their hand at winning an argument with cogent reasoning (even if it's on the topic of 'why we should watch TV first and do homework second').

To derogate your kids and oppress their thoughts is just tyrannical - I mean, hasn't anyone read Ender's Game already? Children are never 'stupid' - they're inexperienced, and their thought processes are much more sophisticated than some adults would ever imagine. To think that it's okay to win arguments by yelling (anything tantamount to:) "BECAUSE I'm your mother" or "I'm the one who puts a roof over your head and food on your table" is therefore, ridiculously fascist and in a way will actually indoctrinate your children with the idea that it is okay to ignore other people's opinions and to impose arbitrary rules upon others if you are their superior.

This is also something my dad firmly believes in. He used to be an Eagle Dad (dad version of tiger mum) and during our countless screaming matches, I would protest about the inevitability that I would lose the argument because, DUH, I was the 'child' and had no real power in the relationship. For example:

"This is so unfair! So many people have told me that I'm good at drawing!"

"DRAWING AMOUNTS TO NOTHING. DO YOU WANT TO BECOME A BEGGAR LIVING ON THE STREET??? DRAWING IS FOR IDIOTS. I SAID NO DRAWING LESSONS AND THAT'S THAT."

"I HATE YOU!"

"LIVE WITH IT CINDY. I'M YOUR DAD AND I'M THE ONE WITH THE MONEY AROUND HERE. YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE ME ABOUT IT? WELL TOO BAD, THIS IS THE NATURAL HIERARCHY OF POWER AND PEOPLE UP THE TOP GET TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WHILE THOSE AT THE BOTTOM ARE SLAVES TO POWER."

- my dad, in those exact bloody words.

And no doubt, it's not just my dad. I know a lot of my peers who believe that it is also a 'way of life' that powerful people get to treat others like shiet - and accepts it. It's a traditional way of thinking and unless we're living in Japan, South Korea or some other heavily Confucian-infused culture where it would be impossible to speak back to a superior without getting abused/fired, I think it's bullshit.

ugh.

And that's exactly what Louisa, Amy's younger daughter, thought of it. She turned out a bit like me. After suffering under dictatorial rule for years and years, she started to rebel at every opportunity.

Yelling back. Throwing things across the room. Banging on walls. Crying and screaming unabashedly in classy restaurants and threatening to throw glass cups onto the floor/table/wall. Dobbing on the parents to teachers. Telling our friends.

It was war.

And in the end, Louisa won. That's really what the whole book is about in the first place. Amy Chua wrote this book because she is the world's biggest humble-brag.

By the time she admitted that Chinese parenting was tearing them apart and had apologised to her daughter, she had already vaunted for 300 pages about how both her daughters had become academic geniuses and musical virtuosos, with Louisa, still a preteen, being invited to play the violin at concerts and stuff.

SO IN CONCLUSION, Amy Chua still believes that despite all the pain and suffering they both went through, it was definitely worth it. At least for her, she says.

DO YOU THINK IT'S WORTH IT?

What if you tried the same method with your children (pushing them really hard at school and music etc.), produced a mean maths machine who won every single gold medal at Maths Olympiad, only to lose their love? And what if, due to your constant subjugation, your son turns into a guy with no self-confidence?

Wellity well well, here comes the turning point. Apparently, Louisa and her mum made up and now they love each other very much. But every child and family is different. In my household, my dad and I are pretty much still at loggerheads every second. We're totally dysfunctional and I can't remember any time we've ever said "I love you" (compared to Amy and Louisa, who apparently have always had a habit of writing little notes of love to each other). And Amy has to understand that not every Chinese parent is a Yale Law school professor with perfect English and connections to the best academic resources in the world (there was one night where she invited a whole bunch of Supreme Court Judges to a family dinner). The fact that her daughters are still grateful for what their mum has given them despite her fascist tutelage really fucking depends on these sort of things.

The only thing I will respect Amy Chua for is her dedication to her children. That's it. Things like her unhesitating willingness to make hour long driving trips at 6am so that her children can attend music lessons, or to spend her pensioner's savings on their tuition.

I mean, my parents yell at me for still being on my L plates, and yet 90% of the time when I ask them to sit beside me while I drive somewhere, they will say they're "way too exhausted" = can't be fkd. Seriously mum?!?!

Anyway. Chinese parenting is a bet of a lifetime.

If you succeed to win back your children's love after making their lives miserable, then it's worth it. Really worth it.

If you don't, your children will hate you forever and never want to speak to you again.

The only certain thing in both situations - they will have no childhood.

Monday, 7 October 2013

If you didn't know already, Emma Watson and Benedict Cumberbatch are "two white people"

http://birdeemag.com/emma-watson-sexy-for-the-right-reasons/

"The two white people..."

What in the actual fuck?!?!??!?!

Anyway. I don't know anything about Benedict except that he's in Dr. Who and apparently women love him even though with his all white (hur) looks he could probably play a steely eyed Nazi pretty well.

Emma Watson on the other hand - if we are going to be shallow dicks like everyone who puts these lists together - I think she is average or at most, slightly above average. I think the biggest reason why guys find her extremely hot is because 1. they grew up with her on apparently everybody's (but not mine) favourite series evaaaaaaar, Harry Potter 2. she's cutesy, nice and looks approachable i.e. wifey material.

I don't think she's sexy, but yeah, I guess she's cute.

Really overrated in terms of hotness though.

Also, speaking of smart actresses, Natalie Portman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emma Watson any day.

Also, Kate Beckinsale went to Oxford. *INTERESTING FACT OF THE DAY*

Sunday, 6 October 2013

The douchebags who aren't willing to believe that celebrities can be rape victims

Today, shocking media reports surfaced which revealed that two of the world's richest, most recognised pop icons are victims of rape.

One of them at eight years old; the other when she was 20, trying to make it big in New York as a dancer. While their accounts were disturbing ( - being held at gunpoint and being raped on the roof of a building), the way that some articles and netizens have dismissed these experiences as fictional, self-aggrandising, attention-grabbing ploys, have been even more so. They go even further as to insinuate that pop stars who are 'fame-whores', who act arrogant, who have built their entire careers on being 'sex icons/gods'are people that just...can't possibly be rape victims because ahem - they're sluts and morally decrepit people.

So who are they? Madonna and Chris Brown.

Firstly, there's Madonna for the November issue of Harpers Bazaar, talking about the first year she moved to New York:

New York wasn't everything I thought it would be. It did not welcome me with open arms. The first year, I was held up at gunpoint. Raped on the roof of a building I was dragged up to with a knife in my back, and had my apartment broken into three times. I don't know why; I had nothing of value after they took my radio the first time.

And all the homeless people on the street. This wasn't anything I prepared for in Rochester, Michigan. Trying to be a professional dancer, paying my rent by posing nude for art classes, staring at people staring at me naked. Daring them to think of me as anything but a form they were trying to capture with their pencils and charcoal. I was defiant. Hell-bent on surviving. On making it. But it was hard and it was lonely, and I had to dare myself every day to keep going.

Despite the fact that some comments have provided links to articles as early as 1995 where she has talked about the rape incident, there was an initial barrage of really horrible, really hypocritical, slut-shaming comments left on Jezebel, a well known feminist gossip & news site that usually draws a commentariat of above average literacy and intelligence:

SendMeToHelenBackAgainUDodai Stewart

gayghostUSendMeToHelenBackAgain

SendMeToHelenBackAgainUgayghost
Exactly. The break-ins, absolutely I believe. The gunpoint robbery, maybe. The rape, no.

She practically invited us inside her body with a speculum (in fact, for all I know, she may literally have done that). There's no way she would have kept quiet about this for so long. It's just a pathetic attempt to aggrandize herself - look what I've survived! How awesome I am!

No. Friday 7:30pm

Are you fucking kidding me!??!?!? God, I just want to punch these people in the fucking face. Saying shit like that is like saying:

If Lady Gaga (because she's probably the modern day equivalent) had been raped when she was young but only spoke about it publicly during an interregnum in her career or after retirement, then it's automatically 1. attention grabbing and fake 2. not possible because we have seen her 99% naked in her music videos and therefore, she should have been really comfortable talking about her experience of rape (RAPE!) at all times, to a potential audience of 7 billion people i.e. the fucking world. Because after all, it's LADY GAGA, INVINCIBLE 'FREE BITCH' & MULTI-MILLIONAIRE CHAMPION OF THE WEIRD. NOT LADY GAGA THE HUMAN BEING who can be JUST AS VULNERABLE to assaults as any of us plebs.

A stripper, a prostitute or a porn star can't be raped because they flaunt or use their bodies in a sexual way anyway and they are absolutely the DEVIL'S HEATHENS - i.e. 100% SLUT SHAMING

After this initial onslaught of 'oh my god it's Madonna, she can't be raped', were at last, some comments from some sensible readers of the same site who have called out the slut-shamers:

oblonglolUDodai Stewart
So, wait. Some of the comments here don't sit well with me.

The general sentiment seems to be: "She loves attention, obviously she couldn't have been raped."

That makes no fucking sense. Everybody can be raped. Everybody, including people who get naked on TV. Jesus Christ. Friday 8:36pm

wonderfulfrowardUoblonglol
Yes, this. For fuck's sake, sex workers get raped all the time. Wanting attention is not mutually exclusive to getting raped. Friday 8:54pm

brightersideoflifeUoblonglol
I know, right? Especially given that she was working as a nude model and a dancer, I can totally believe she knew exactly how problematic it would be to even try to report it to the police back in the day. Friday 9:55pm

TraceTheLordeUJenB84
I could imagine someone as she, who had begun her career as someone wanting to champion women as powerful and so forth, not feeling so psyched about sharing this with anyone, let alone the world, let alone at that time, and let alone when it's a benchmark of women's victimization.

But to question the veracity as others have done? Egads, that's troublesome and sad and indicative yet again, of why women don't want to give voice to this crime.

Most vindicating is this 1995 NME interview with Madonna:

Madonna grimaces and falls silent.
Would you rather stop talking about this?

“I don’t want to talk about it only in that…” she pauses, choosing her words carefully, “I don’t want to get into this Oprah Winfrey/Sinead O’Connor thing of, ‘Oh, everybody, all these horrible things have happened to me!’ I don’t want to make it an issue. I think that I’ve had what a lot of people would consider to be horrific experiences in my life. But I don’t want people to feel sorry for me because I don’t.

So there you go. Fucking hell.

I just can't believe that Jezebel - a site that's so infamous for its feminist readership, has come up with this shit storm of what is essentially victim-blaming; and for perpetuating this entrenched disadvantage/problem - that rape victims have to constantly deal with social judgments on their past sexual experiences, their past behaviour, their 'inclination' to get in bed with someone (things that have been banned from being taken into account in rape trials btw), and even be accused of making fake rape claims. UGH.

GET IT INTO YOUR BRAINS, slut-shaming is wrong because:

a woman could be walking naked on the beach but that doesn't excuse a man from running over there and raping the heck out of her.
I could be wearing a mini-skirt while taking pt but I'm not asking men to stick their hand up my skirt and feel me up.
Even if a girl is at a club, in a barely-there dress, grinding up on you with flirty eyes on show, and a little bit tipsy, that's NEVER AN EXCUSE for you to assume, even if you guys have kissed, that she wants your penis inside her. Because rape is humiliating, violating, could impregnate the victim and is likely to stigmatise her forever depending on her values and cultural background. Not to mention that it could leave physical, and definitely mental scars. No woman asks for rape.
Discussion about 'how a woman should dress' is a different fucking thing to 'how to prevent rape'. The former is about standards of propriety and freedom of choice and expression, while the latter is about stopping men from doing rape because it's goddamn fucking obvious that when a woman gets raped, it's the man who's in control. So stop the man, not the woman. ffs

But if I thought what people have said about Madonna was bad, holee furkin' crap... the Chris Brown article on Jezebel was 1000000000000000000000000000x worse.

Before I go on, I realise that a lot of people really hate CB as a person. He's bashed Rihanna and thrown chairs at people so he's not exactly a person that's easy to sympathise with.

But anyway, criticism where it is valid, and sympathy where it is necessary too. We can hold multiple opinions of Chris Brown at the same time, for he is probably as complex as the rest of us. - a Jezebel commenter

But people need to realise that this is a very different case. A male rape victim case. Meaning that if you take into account the overwhelming social expectations that are placed on male superstars (especially rappers and whatnot who explicitly channel masculinity into their art) as well as his childhood - watching his mother get beaten to a bloody pulp, having admitted that he once wanted to kill his stepfather - then it is really inappropriate for the writer to be glossing over his story (even if CB was uber cocky about it) with a nonchalant, yep haha CB trying to portray himeslf as 'some sort of mythical sex Jesus'... what a cunt.

The fact is that he lost his virginity when he was EIGHT to a 14/15 year old girl - WHAT????Can't Doug Barry (the writer of the Jezebel article) see that this is something extremely extremely ... disturbing and wrong???

I mean - that's statutory rape that he just accidentally admitted to. HE WAS EIGHT.

This is a kid who is eight.

EIGHT.

If a female actress/singer came out and said 'yeah haha I mean I was watching porn at a really young age, I lost my virginity when I was eight to a fifteen year old guy, so yeah I guess I was really mature ya know.'

THE WHOLE MEDIA WOULD BE ALL OVER THAT SHIT. LIKE 'OMG OMG YOU WERE EIGHT DID YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU WERE DOING THEN?'

I feel like because CB is a guy, and because he's done some stupid shit in the past, and because he was vaunting about his first time like it was a huge achievement - that people just completely forget the fact that 1. that's statutory rape 2. there is a reason why he's kind of fucked up right now.

And of course, there is a good goddamn reason why laws are enacted to criminalise people who have sex with children below a certain age, or people who groom children for sex by supplying them with porn. Because they're CHILDREN. There is a huge power imbalance between them: being too young to understand what's happening, too weak to say no etc.

Comments from the original interview on The Guardian:

Anon1989

04 October 2013 11:35pm

He lost his virginity when he was eight years old, to a local girl who was 14 or 15. Seriously? "Yeah, really. Uh-huh." He grins and chuckles. "It's different in the country."

Omfg, what did I just read???????? Bloody disturbing. I couldn't get passed that part. Eight year old with a 14/15 year old! WTF.

ClareLondon gherkingirl

05 October 2013 6:52am

Excuse me?

He and his gang were addicted to porn. At eight. He was 'raring to go'.

You cannot apply only one analysis to every situation. This was not an innocent 8 year old who was seduced by his kindergarten teacher and went home crying to his mummy.

davidc929 ClareLondon

05 October 2013 7:28am

Try replacing what you wrote with 8 year old girl and think how disturbing what you wrote is

gherkingirl ClareLondon

05 October 2013 9:41am

Can you hear yourself?

Sexual abuse is only sexual abuse if the victim is innocent? I'd consider it highly disturbing that 8 year old boys were accessing enough porn at that age to get addicted. That's just grooming by another name.

Blame Chris Brown for beating Rihanna and being so unrepentant about it. But it's beyond words to blame an 8 year old for their sexual abuse and perpetuate this hierarchy of victims where some are more deserving of sympathy than others.

On Jezebel:

ZombieCateUDoug Barry

Chris Brown has a singular talent for making it impossible to sympathize with him even if he’s recounting a vaguely traumatic incident from his childhood. You know, like that time he lost his virginity to teenage girl. When he was eight.

Is this a joke? Did Jezebel really just publish a story that tries to make a victim the villain of their own sexual abuse? I get that CB is an asshat and an abuser. I get that he's full of shit. But he just admitted to being RAPED and you used it as an excuse to say that he thinks he's awesome?

WHAT THE ACTUAL EVERLOVING FUCK IS THIS SHIT?

Let me tell you how the narrative would go if this were a white guy with CB's history. Let's say Charlie Sheen:

"Well this explains a lot about his previous behaviour. It's obvious that he's internalized the idea that sex makes a man powerful and is something that all men aspire to all the time. Sheen's abuse reveals interesting points about the way he views masculinity, power and dominance, and hints at why he feels the need to surround himself with porn star girlfriends. His abuse may have cemented the idea that sexual activity was the only way to demonstrate his manhood, spiraling into other damaging beliefs about masculinity and dominance over women."

NOT "What a dick! He thinks he's awesome for having sex at 8. Asshole."

Seriously? Fuck this Jezebel. Yesterday 3:45pm

I need not say more.

Friday, 20 September 2013

Making porn stars wear condoms - well...duh?

Infected porn stars say the outbreak of HIV infections

shows the industry needs to get serious about condoms

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/hiv-positive-porn-stars-argue-condoms-article-1.1460438#ixzz2fR6HaOvT
Following the above controversy, a friend and I had a discussion about whether or not porn actors should be forced to wear condoms at work. My view was that this should definitely be an industry requirement (which common sense tells me it already is, just maybe not adhered to) - and perhaps even legislated at some level. Sure, the 'tactile pleasure', as he called it, wouldn't be as awesome, but it's better to sacrifice a bit of TP than to contract freaking HIV.

He went on about 'freedom of choice' and something about 'those who don't want to wear condoms are looked down upon by peers'....some weird shit like that... which is either:
1. something he just assumed cos lul iunno HE HAS A DICK THAT NEEDS TO BE LIBERATED FROM A HERMETIC RUBBER PRISON.
2. or something legit because he knows the porn industry like the back of his hand

Regardless, the peer pressure thing ultimately didn't make sense to me. Wouldn't producers want the actors and actresses to do it without a condom for better performances? If anything, I would have thought there would be more pressure on them to do it without protection. Feel free to rebut me on this... lel.

Anyway. The current outbreak clearly shows that despite certain health groups and organisations encouraging the use of condoms or setting a requirement for its use in pornography, and despite the growing awareness about the dangers of contracting HIV for the last decade, porn actors and actresses (well, they can request it) are not using condoms enough. Maybe they're in reckless denial about the risk they're taking. Maybe it's just pressure from producers or co-workers.

Whatever it is - the consequences are manifestly clear.

Saturday, 15 June 2013

Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong

Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend -- not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let's change the way we think about changing the world.

Everything the donating public has been taught about giving is dysfunctional, says AIDS Ride founder Dan Pallotta. He aims to transform the way society thinks about charity and giving and change.

---------------

My thoughts:

Everyone wants to own their own home, have their own car, support their family and be able to afford all the nice perks of life that would make living a little more enjoyable - a luxury sedan, an expensive watch, some designer goodies, a trip to Paris, a night out with friends at Nobu. It's why people work so damn hard. And I'm assuming that most of us have similar material aspirations. If we earn enough money, why not lavish ourselves once in a while?

But what if you're someone who's also really passionate about charity; someone smart and innovative and able to provide appropriate technical advice on projects? What if you want to work for an institution like WWF, World Vision (or a smaller institution) and want to take a direct part in project development and research?

Well, forget about that European sports car with the orgasmic obsidian paint you've been saving up for. Working for a NPO may be morally rewarding but it means you will face a lifetime of socio-economic limitations - what you can do with the money you earn is strictly governed by moral standards attributed by society to those working in the non-profit sector. And if you breach those standards for even the tiniest exhibition of using your own finances for personal pleasure (and not for saving African kids), then you're an uber demonic capitalist/satan/father of all lies.

You want to drive a luxury Audi A8 instead of a fugly green Toyota Prius? Well NO. Because everyone will be like "you could have given that money to starving Ethiopian families man."

You want a nice Hugo Boss suit tailored to fit your absolutely ripped body instead of a Target t-shirt and op shop jeans? Well NO. Could've sponsored a hundred kids from World Vision.

You want the newest generation iPod? Well NO. Could've fed a bunch of homeless people for a week.

You see the problem here? Where does it stop? What extent of frugality must we exhibit to show that we are dedicated to our charitable cause?

So I guess, either you work for a NP organisation and sacrifice all the nice perks you would and could have bought (remember that it is NORMAL to want these things), or live like an ascetic so you don't face the backlash that comes with working for a NPO but also wanting to buy the newest LV bag/Louboutin shoes.

I know there are people who would be outraged at this idea - "if you're TRULY passionate about helping people and working for charity, then you shouldn't give a shit about money and material things because that's not what's important. Saving lives is more important. Feeding hungry mouths is more important. Fuck your Audi."

But if you REALLY think about it, why is that so wrong? What in the world is so wrong with wanting to enjoy your own life while helping the needy at the same time? I don't see how a love for fast cars or high tier fashion should be considered mutually exclusive to a love for helping those in need.

As long as you're making a difference and doing so effectively - fulfilling your personal material aspirations with the money that you earn (legitimately) should be none of anyone else's freakin' business. So please shut up, purist sanctimonious vegan dread-locked hippies. I mean, I don't see you guys giving upper east side philanthropists shit for driving around in Aston Martins. Ya know why? Cos these people (and yes, they are people) are some of the most important agents of change in the NP sector as well as the profit sector. Sure, they buy lots of things they don't really need but if they've worked hard for the money, why shouldn't they? They're still giving a fairly big amount of money back to charity and that's what counts. They're making a bigger difference than most people.

Obviously, I'm not going to extremes and saying that Tim Costello (CEO of World Vision) should be buying three Maseratis if he really wanted to. But (I'm going to segue into a second point now) it's just this screwed up notion that NP workers should be receiving the barest minimum in pay since anything above that is considered a gross perversion of their job, is something that really irks me. It also makes a lot of young people second question their ability to make a decent living out of the NP sector. This isn't selfishness or some sort of fucked up Gen Y/Gen Z characteristic, it's realism. It's pragmatism. It's not wanting to be underpaid for overtime. It's whether we can get what we deserve for the effort we put in. Whether we have agency to exert personal freedom in the structure we've been confined to.

If not, people will start looking for different paths that are both personally rewarding AND helping starving kids is in developing countries.

And people wonder why there aren't more top graduates going to the NP sector instead of the profit sector/becoming investment bankers at Goldman Sachs lul.

As Dan Pallotta said, why not just go into the profit sector and earn tonnes of $$ and then give part of that back to charity? Then I have some more leeway to buy all the crap I want while promoting a humanitarian agenda - WIN WIN. I may even be able to make a greater contribution because I'm able to take more risks with my money and invest it in specific projects that no medical institution or government would sponsor, either because they have more pressing priorities or because they only want to work on issues that affect the majority and not the minority.

Finally, that entrenched view that NP organisations should strip overhead to a minimum as well .... ugh. UGH. Just watch the video and you'll get what I mean.

He's so right when he implies that we need to revolutionise the way we think about charities. People need to STOP thinking that money spent on advertising, fundraising, campaigning and workers' salaries should be minimised as they don't contribute directly to donations and thus, the mission. They are just as freaking important.

Watch the damn video.

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

Understanding what reclaiming the word 'slut' and 'victim-blaming' means

From Io9:

Slut Shaming and Concern Trolling in Geek Culture

“Honey, your skirt is a little short.”To be fair, it was a little short. It was short intentionally. I was dressed in a science officer costume from Star Trek: The Original Series. Not the sleek little work-appropriate but still sexy jewel tone tunics from the new movie, but the flared, strangely-constructed, unapologetically teal and chartreuse polyester cheerleader dresses that fit perfectly with the (now) retrofuturistic vibe of the original show. It’s a screen accurate dress. And by “screen accurate” I mean “short”. And at the beginning of the day, I just assumed the lady who commented was pointing out that I needed to tug down the dress a bit. That was the first comment. After the next 30 or so, I had had enough.

........

I do need to point out here, that none of this came from people involved with the con. In fact, everyone even slightly officially affiliated with Balticon was respectful, concerned and nerdily-excited about my outfit, my hair, the screen-accurate seams. The staff, the volunteers, the program participants, even the people working the tables for other events were all wonderful.

The people attending, on the other hand, were Not Comfortable With The Way I Chose to Present. I felt like they really, really wanted me to go back to my room and change into a long, historically accurate, shapeless Medieval dress. Or jeans and a geek t-shirt. Either would be acceptable: not too aggressively feminine, but not dressed nicely enough to make them nervous they were being invaded by mundanes.

We in the nerd community have a tendency to make fun of the “fashionable people” or the “cool kids”. The ones who dress alike and spend their lives being sheep to the newest styles. Part of the fascination on social media with watching Abercrombie and Fitch’s fall from grace seemed to be a form of schadenfreude, against the pretty people who had made our lives hell in high school/college/life and who so proudly wore that brand as a mark of tribal membership.

....

There is no reason I should have to do this, but I came to realize something in reflecting on events at Balticon: I am, at all conventions, surrounded by people who accept me, who care for me and who are willing to hand me a gin and tonic or three when I look like I’m about ready to punch the next person who comments on my skirt. It’s not a position of power, but it is a position of safety. Every place I go will not be a safe space, but the people around me make it one for me.

So my solution? Not be invisible. Not anymore. Not let my legs and skirt short speak for my presence, but speak for myself. Challenge the male gaze both metaphorically and literally. Sitting in the bar and fuming at other convention attendees won’t help. Opening my mouth and answering them just might. Or it might make other people witnessing the exchange think about what happened. Point out that I can both wear a short skirt and have a brain under my beehive. Out loud. And probably snarkily.

Click on the above link to read full article. It's really good.

Comments:

EridaniUEmily Finke – This View of Life

Hmm. I guess this is supposed to be striking a blow for feminism. You bust out some 3rd wave feminist terms here to make your case. However, I'm about to drop another layer of feminism on you.

And it is this:

Most of the geek costumes for women originated directly from the male gaze. For example, that tiny skirt was designed by, and for the enjoyment of, men. That it's now an iconic symbol of geekdom changes that not one bit. When you are wearing it, you are a walking billboard stating "this is how the mens want a geek girl to look" flashing over your head.

And here you are, ardently defending your right to comply.

That's the real rub here. You want to be free to wear things that were designed by men specifically to showcase women as sex objects, yet not be treated like a sex object. That's what I want you to be aware of. That's what I want you to understand when you're getting all feministy. If that's the tack you want to take, at least talk about how you're trying to own it or something. Taking it back from the patriarchy or whatevs. Because it's one hell of a mixed message you are sending, and the dudes who are receiving it aren't bastions of social awareness, generally.

So, wear that skirt. You look great. But understand that the issue is at least one layer deeper than you've made it out to be. Friday 7:47am

OssifrageUEridani

There's nothing complicated about victim blaming, and you aren't as insightful as you seem to think. Friday 7:55am

EridaniUOssifrage

Any intelligent rebuttal about anything I said would be very welcome. Where is anything I said not true? Specifically, mind.

I'm not saying it's cool for those people to treat her that way. I am saying that when you take a stand, it's a good idea to comprehend just what you're standing for. Friday 7:59am

PeregonUEridani

That's stupid, insulting, condescending, and ignorant of how society functions.

Problematic systems change hands by generation. Cultures internalize, own, and remix problematic ideas and make them "their own". Look at every genre of music, the pop cultures and subcultures we live in...hell, half of the socially-maladjusted things geeks do. It's all tied into owning once-shameful traits. Nerdy is cool. Redneck is cool. Gangsta is cool. And you know what? Sexuality can be reclaimed from patriarchy.

The true sign of success is when we are allowed to define our own terms, consciously, rather than just accept what's given to us. That includes from you. Friday 8:00am