Sexism is...

Sexism is just like Racism. Being a sexist should have equal connotations and social implications to being a racist and it currently does not. The fact that you are discriminating against a larger group of people does not make it somehow more acceptable.

Let me start by drawing the parallels.

Racism is imbuing a set of characteristics and behaviours on a group of people that are loosely defined by observed and arbitrary physical qualities. The purpose of which does not make it any less or more racist. For example: If I were to say that all people of African descent like Hip-Hop, that is a racist statement. It does not even matter if I personally think Hip-Hop is great or not. Even if I qualify it by saying most like Hip-Hop, the racist connotation remains. There is no genetic predilection for liking Hip-Hop dependent of one's heredity. Liking Hip-Hop is in fact an entirely personal or cultural choice. Even if every single person you meet of African descent likes Hip-Hop it does not change the fact that it has nothing to do with their genealogy. What it probably means is that the group of people from African descent that you have interacted with have similar cultural backgrounds. If I take a person of northern European descent and raise them completely within the confines of said culture the likelihood of them liking Hip-Hop go up exponentially. Coincidently, if I take a person of African descent and raise them in a culture that does not value Hip-Hop, they are far less likely to enjoy it. Boundless examples of this exist. Obviously music is slightly more complicated because there is a cultural rebellion aspect to it that also governs taste, but this is merely a template that can be used on any characteristic that is deemed to be originating based on race.

Today, this is highly accepted. For the most part society has come to understand that the concept of Race is entirely bogus. Still the same enlightenment is not afforded to the concept of Gender and that is from what sexism is spawned.

Simple parallel: Males like cars / Females like like flowers.

The moment a statement is made of such a sweeping nature, it becomes fairly obvious how sexism is just like racism. We have, of course, seen examples of female car lovers and male flower aficionados. It should be more than understood that the liking of such things has nothing to do with the physiological differences between men and woman. The fact that there are more male mechanics and more female florists is entirely of social construction. If we were to create a society where men were valued as horticulturalists and women as mechanics we would see the inverse of the above statement. The argument is often made about hormones and how they effect behaviour as way to justify these cultural roles. The effects of hormones on behaviour is largely overblown. The primary effect of hormones is for physical differentiation. In other words they mainly make one part of our body grow over another. Their effect on the brain, and thereby action, is temporary and largely homologous regardless of sex. Hormones make you feel a certain way over another when present in the system, but this fact is relative to a baseline. The best example for this is by looking at the effects of testosterone on both men and women. We know that men have a great deal more of testosterone than women and we know that the effects it has on the brain is to make a person horny. By definition women must have lower levels of testosterone, otherwise their clitorises would look more like penises among other changes. But when we look at sexual desire between women and men the differences only exist on an individual per individual basis, not sex wide (despite what the mass media tells you, women like & want sex). So what governs sexual desire is not the sheer amount of the hormone, but rather the change in the level of the hormone based on baseline levels. From this we can see that even emotional characteristics we assign to one sex over another can be spurious. What is true is that men & women act and think differently based cultural conditioning much in the same way that people of a certain group like certain things and act in a certain ways.

We have gotten beyond the insulting and erroneous cliché that "black people are more likely to commit crimes" and understood that it is people who have been made poor and had hope taken away from them by social construction that are more likely to commit crimes, but for some reason the "men are more likely ogle and reduce women to sexual objects" cliché persists. The majority of society continues to draw on raw numbers to justify prejudice. It is true that more men reduce women to sexual objects, just as it is true that more people of African descent in the US commit crimes. But neither of these truths means that it is inherent to one group or the other. The fact of the matter is that society is raising people in a sexist manor that creates these exact relations. If we were to flip the script and raise girls in a way that they view men as being "Hot or Not" and little more, then we would see the inverse of the cliché. The truth is that this is the constant representation of women in the media. Even outside of sexual contexts they are being qualified as "Hot or Not". Just look at the past US elections and the discussion over Sarah Palin. The fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin is a repugnant human being, the calibre of Bush & Harper, yet the discussions of her centred more on her relative hotness!!! Did we qualify the Bush candidacy in such a manor? Were there discussions about how he is jerk, but kind of sexy? Obviously Bush's relative hotness was NOT a topic for mainstream media. But society is fed these subliminal messages from birth onwards and very few are able to divorce themselves from the this type of prescribed learning, so the vast majority act in sexist ways.

The "all men act this way" crowd have mountains of evidence to corroborate their claims because most men they have observed act this way. But as I have stated before, saying that most of a determined group acts a certain way is just as prejudice as saying they all do. The truth is that individuals act a certain way because of their cultural background and therefore the only way we should judge any individual person is by their individual actions. We can not infer how they will or will not behave based on what others we perceive as the same have done. It is insulting and wrong to lump in any individual with their sex. Each single man is not every man just as each single woman is not every woman and none of their thoughts or actions is determined by their sex. Gender is, in fact, a culture within a culture. Unfortunately it is the dominant mold for all the major cultures that persist today so people tend to believe in gender norms. If they exist throughout different cultures then they must be a universal truth. This is not the case. It is a matter of a subculture that is popular within the cultures that have become dominant. But even within these we can deconstruct gender because their have been instances of matriarchal societies who's gender based norms deviated wildly from the ascribed norms that we claim as inherent today. Societies where women were the decision makers and governed the means of production while men tended to the fields did exist. The fact that we as a society have almost always assigned tasked based on sex, probably has more to do with our obsession with genitals and the desire to put things in neat little boxes than anything else. And before you argue with me about the "obsession with genitals" line please read writers like Linnaeus who invented taxonomy and race.

The exclusivity of clubs and groups

Let me start by saying I am for complete freedom of the individual. Even if that means the freedom to be racist and sexist. But that said, we as a society have a responsibility to create world where such things adversely affect the grieved party as least as possible. Traditionally there have been clubs and associations that deny people entry based on the made up characteristics I have detailed above (race & gender). For a large part we have gotten rid of the racial ones because we are beginning to understand that those characteristics we view as being inherently white, black or asian or any other "race" have nothing to do with reality and are a mere social construction. Therefore you are excluding one group based on simple prejudice which we can pretty much all see as wrong. The groups that do still exist that exclude one "race" over another tend to be viewed as pariahs in society. One need only look at the Klu Klux Klan to see how you can pay a social price for being a racist. The same cannot be said for groups that exclude one sex over the other. My thoughts are immediately drawn to the Augusta Golf Club in Georgia that allows only for men to be members. They have received some bad press, but nothing on the scale of clubs that exclude by race. Could a Golf Club even exclude people by race today? I think the ACLU would put a stop to that relatively quickly. It is my opinion that members of a sexist club should be treated with the same sort of disdain we reserve for racists.

Moving on to the journal experience: When you create a club/community that excludes one sex over another in order to have a "safe" place away from actions that you believe belong to one sex over another you are being sexist. It is the same as creating a community that says "no black people allowed because discussions contained within will be about the fancy stuff we have in our homes and we don't want to get robbed". It doesn't matter if your discussions are completely sex specific. Even if it is a community about something as specific to women as menstruation, it is still wrong. Not that men menstruate, but perhaps a man has had a relationship with someone and an experience that has imparted him with invaluable knowledge on the subject. I, for one, have a great deal of knowledge and opinions on the use of menstral cups (in favour) because of a past relationship. It does not even matter if I am unique, by denying me the opportunity to join you would be denying my uniqueness and lumping me in with all men based on subjective characteristics and the idea that I cannot possibly understand what you as a woman are going through. This fails to take in account that understanding goes beyond personal experience and can be learned. Still, the right exists for people to act in reprehensible racist & sexist ways; I cannot deny that. What I think should happen though, is much in the way we stigmatize racism in society, sexism should have the same fate. A club/group that discriminates by sex should be noted as SEXIST, so as everyone who joins knows in exactly what they are participating. It is only in that way that we can hope to educate people on how sexism permeates throughout society and how even people who believe themselves to be enlightened can engage in sexist activities.

On a side note, I am baffled by how racism & sexism are viewed differently based on the perpetrators. A group that excludes people of African descent is viewed as despicable racists, but is it the same for a group that excludes all "white" people? I get the feeling that such a group would not receive the same amount of public scorn. It is true that historically it has been "white" people who have been the perpetrators of racism, but that does not make any other actions based on race any less racist. We must not use historical trends to create modern norms; it defeats the purpose of the attempt to rid ourselves of racism. Likewise there is this trend in sexism. I have given the example of the men only Golf Club in Georgia; would there be the same sort of (mild) outrage suffered upon a women only Golf Club (or any other club for that matter)? In fact, women's only gyms are quite popular for the same reason that these sexist livejournal clubs pop up (men cannot help themselves but to ogle women) and I have heard no outrage or protestations about them. Not that I am saying they do not have the right to exist, but the truth is that they are even more sexist than that Golf Club. The golf club allows women to play there, just not become members. Do these women's gyms allow for men to exercise there at a reduced role or a higher cost? The answer is clearly no. There is an obvious double standard when it comes to sexism and racism. This too is do to culturally learned norms. For most young people there is a constant double standard when growing up, (boys can have sex; girls must remain chaste - there are others that are far less obvious too) so it is no wonder that these double standards persist when dealing with anything that separates the sexes.

I think it is important understand what sexism is. It is NOT men oppressing women and denying them X,Y, or Z based on their sex. It is about any prejudice heaped upon one sex over another. Just as a woman can be denied a job based on her sex a man can too, and the fact that one is more likely than the other does not make the other any less valid. But it is NOT just about jobs, it is about exclusion at all levels. If we are to say that women are not to be denied X,Y, and Z then they should not be able to turn around and deny A, B and C from men. And if we are to allow for special clubs that are based on exclusion of race or sex then the burden of societal scorn should be equal. The outrage over a gym that doesn't allow men, should be equal to the outrage of a club that doesn't allow for people of African descent. There is nothing different about excluding people by race then there is by excluding them by sex. For me personally, being friends with someone that would join a club that is sexist is the same as being friends with a racist and I would expect that to be understood. SEXISM = RACISM = PREJUDICE

LAY

Don't Swallow the Bullshit

The refusal to think about things that currently plague our society is a symptom of the overworked, slavish manor in which we live. People today work for more hours, for less cost of living adjusted remuneration than any any time in human history and yet we are constantly fed the idea that we have a "better life" than ever before. Meanwhile the general public are prescribed pills upon pills to dull their senses and sex drive just in case they, for a second, get the urge to question the dogma or to live a life that doesn't centre on whatever horible little task they must spend 40 hours of their week doing. There is no room for those who question. They are marginalized. So most people choose not to even bother to think, because the pills, be them actual or metaphysical, are much easier to swallow that way.

Mr. Smiley vs. Poser Man

Well this have officially become a picture blog; oh well. I just haven't felt like writing that much especially with all the writing I have to do for school. This summer I am going to have to find a honours project for the fall as well. Oh yeah, that's news: I am now in honours, which is cool, I guess.

Anyway, the subject of this post: I do take quite a few pictures of myself and most of them end up being stylized posing pictures such a s the one below this here writing. I almost never post smiley pictures because I just don't think they look that good. I know, I know, they always tell you to smile for photographs and for many years I followed the party line. But after hundreds of pictures that were taken of me that I rather disliked, I gave up on all this forced smiling and embraced the poser within. I am happy with the results. Still to this day the pictures where the photographer guilts me into smiling are the ones I look the worst in.

But for you who are here I shall give you a smiley picture, because I rather liked the way it came out. Still the one I went with for my flickr was the posy one. Feel free to tell me which one you like better.

Incredibly self-indulgent half face pictures

I was trying some different effects for my 365days project over at flickr and didn't want to post all of the different attempts there because they like to charge money (the greedy, corporate bastards). So instead, I am posting them all here, including the original. I think they are all pretty cool. Also, I am all about the cross promotion today!

Keeping your eye on Koalas

In the Olympus optical zoom binoculars advertisement we see a man surrounded by a majestic landscape with a koala bear attached to his head. The koala looks upset and ready to bring some kind of violence upon the man who’s only defence from the imminent koala attack is his trusty binoculars that are creating a barrier between him and the all too enthusiastic animal. In truthfulness, it looks more like the extent of the koala’s violence will be limited to vociferous hugging, but nevertheless, this is a classic representation of the culture/nature dualism. In it we can see how nature is aesthetically pleasing and something of wonder to marvel at, but this marvelling must be done from afar because nature is also out of control and dangerous to the safety of man (culture). And through the use of culture (the binoculars), man can safely enjoy nature without being subject to all of the dreadfulness that comes with the beauty. In essence, although nature has aesthetic value, we must always use some kind of culturally approved tool in order to separate culture from nature. If there is no barrier between culture and nature, then nature will surely bring havoc upon and possibly destroy culture.

The advertisement never fails to sell the viewer on the aesthetic power of nature. Everything about nature is pretty to look at in this picture; from the broad cliffs, to the lush canopy, to even the more friendly than required koala. Everything is beautiful to the beholder. Indeed, who would not want to gaze upon such beauty as depicted in this scenery, but there is danger. Nature is not cultured and therefore it is dangerous. This is how Olympus sells the binoculars by trading on the culture/nature dualism. Nature is this wonderful thing that is desirable to see and enjoy, but if you, from the realm of culture, get too close you will be in danger. It is all well and good to want to see this wild nature stuff, but you need protection from its savagery and this protection comes in the form of Olympus brand binoculars.

The binoculars are the epitome of culture as they let the noble man marvel at his wild and unkempt surroundings from a position of safety. Here is this person with his culturally created things, such as his backpack, on this quest to view nature, but if he does not have this one essential culturally created thing (the binoculars) he could face serious peril. This is a good sale. It is an established culture/nature dynamic that human beings need culturally created things such as tents, jackets, sleeping bags and backpacks in order to brave the wilds of nature. This has already been established and traded upon. What Olympus is doing here is just building on the already established culture/nature dualism that people need things in order to survive in nature, by adding their thing to the list of essentials for survival in nature. They know the viewer already understands that nature can be perilous without the right equipment and they are letting them know that if they want to really see all this beauty, the only way to do it without the possibility of getting mauled is by using their binoculars.

The advertisement also implies that these binoculars get you closer to nature than is even ultimately desirable. They are so good at getting you close to nature that it will be uncomfortable. This again speaks to the notion that nature will induce discomfort, because there is a distinct line between culture and nature. A line that you, being part of culture do not want to cross, but do want to get as close to as possible and these binoculars facilitate that. So what they are saying is that these binoculars do such a great job that you will feel like you have crossed the culture/nature barrier to the side of nature with all of its unkempt wildness, but without actually doing so. You will still be safe and sound behind your cultural shield.

It is a powerful message that imbues not only the item, but also the place with value and thereby appropriates the value of the place (the beautiful wilderness) to the item in question. This speaks to the notion that advertisements such as this one are “an important devise imparting meaning to products… which can be thought of as the language of consumption.” (Sack 1988: pg. 643). In turn, this means that products such as these binoculars become a “powerful and pervasive place-building processes in the modern world. By purchasing or consuming products, people participate in the construction of their everyday environment.” (Sack 1988: pg. 643). This is key to understanding how these binoculars make this place into a reality for the would be consumer. Essentially this place (nature) can only exist because of these binoculars. It is the use of them that creates this nature, by letting you observe it in its full beauty.

This vision of culture/nature could be tied in with Mary Louise Pratt’s “Imperial Eyes”. Essentially the man with the binoculars is much like one of the travel writers of the 18^th and 19^th century undertaking the arduous task of going out and observing nature. Tools such as binoculars were standard for travel writers like Linnaeus and Wallace of that era. Indeed, they are an excellent tool for someone who wishes to document nature. So this advertisement really harkens back to the imagery of that time when noble Europeans would endure this harsh, but beautiful nature with only a few tools and supplies to document their travels and keep them safe from danger.

One could envision those travel writers to not be all that different from this man, even in objective. After all, it does seem as if he wants to carefully catalogue this koala, but things had gotten out of hand. The advertisement is in a way selling the binoculars as a tool that, would be naturalists employ, because it is so good that it is professional grade. The fact is that in his surroundings there is no culture other than the tools he possess and his person. He appears to be alone on this trek trough this dangerous koala infested wilderness and will probably want to document his journey. This is an almost perfect adaptation of the classic image of the travel writers and Olympus is using that image to give us even more of a sense that this is a man who needs his tools to do the job he is doing out on his wilderness trek. Without the cultural tools, like the Olympus binoculars, he would not be able to observe and document the mighty beasts he sees, such as the koala.

Although travel and contemporary authors painstakingly documented ecosystems throughout time, there is this sense when dealing with the envisioning of nature that it is somehow above the notion of human history. William Cronon wisely noted “ideal nature is essentially without history as we know it.” (Cronon 1993: pg. 10) As if nature has always existed and human beings are something new that came along, outside of nature, that can either be a force of disturbance or observance. And when this nature is disturbed by humans (within all histories), it becomes less than ideal. Clearly, this advertisement is not only trading on that notion, but banking on the desirability of the less invasive choice.

I think it is interesting to note the depiction of the koala. Koalas are know to be one of the most passive and friendly wild animals on the planet. They move like sloths and have an even more languid disposition. These are characteristics that are hardly threatening to human beings. Yet if one looks closely at the expression on this particular koala’s face it is decidedly malevolent. At best it can be described as desperate to grab a hold of the poor man fending him off with the binoculars. The koala, in fact, looks obsessed with trying to bring about some kind of unpleasantness to the poor man.

This of course paints the man wielding the binoculars as the victim. He would be the victim of nature if not for his binoculars. That fact gets at the politics of culture/natures such as these. Nature, no matter how pretty, is always the malevolent force in need of control and subduing by culture. If you do not have the means to subdue this unyielding force of nature it is best to keep your distance. The implication is that the realms of culture and nature must be kept distinct and at a safe distance because of the destructive nature of the latter. Humans and culture can not live in symbiosis with nature because the relationship is antagonistic and culture an object of refinement that can fall prey to the lawlessness of nature.

Embedded deep in this line of thinking is the perceived inherent differences between the realm of human beings and nature. I feel like this is one of the ultimate failings of mankind; a failure to understand that he is not fundamentally different than the rest of the inhabitants of this planet. This fact is essential to the creation of the culture/nature dualism. If we are to take any steps to defeating the dualism we must understand that “although human beings posses capacities that distinguish them from other animals, these do not render them different in kind: all the ways in which humanity differs from the rest of nature have to do with the specific modes in which humans do what other animals also do.” (Soper 1995: pg. 321). I believe that this statement is an undeniable truth that must be recognized if any progress is to be made.

The whole concept of culture being better than nature is based on a flawed system of logic. It is created by those who would use nature for their own benefit and those who are not gaining benefits from this culture/nature divide should distance themselves from those who employ the dualism. Sadly though, most people seem to buy into it much in the way they breathe air; without thought or consent. Just as this here man looks to needs a cultural tool such as these binoculars to enjoy what he views as nature, people seem to need the crutch of the culture/nature dualism to properly identify themselves in the world they live in. They seem incapable of establishing an identity without creating a dualism that has them as being the higher order. This is, in part, because human beings use this dualism as a way to see themselves. Throughout history this has been the case; “Self-identification… must be interpreted in its authenticity, that is, in terms of the existential relation between subjects and the constitution of a meaningful world.” (Friedman 1992: pg. 856).

But deconstructing this dualism does not mean an end to humanity as we know it. Indeed, “recognizing the culturally constructed character of our own knowledge is thus quite different from a claim that the world does not exist, or that people invented it merely as an idea in their heads.” (Cronon 1993: pg. 15) All it is saying is that human beings have imbued not only nature, but ourselves in juxtaposition to nature, with specific characteristics that we take as being endemic to culture and nature. I am not entirely sure if there will ever come a day when the realization that this is a completely flawed way of viewing the world will ever dawn on humanity or will it simply never be registered by the human consciousness. I believe that these dualisms must end if we are ever to fix the things that are wrong in our society and world as a whole. For this to happen we must see that “nature is… no more than we think it is.” (Cronon 1993: pg. 15).

These binoculars being sold in this advertisement perhaps represent a great deal more than is first pictured on the surface. Just as they narrow the scope of vision and focus in on one specific thing in the environment so does the dualism of culture/nature narrow humanity’s view of the world that we inhabit. Through our figurative binoculars we reduce our scope of vision to good & bad, oppressor & oppressed, and so on. In this picture we have the violent chaos of nature being fended off by the altruistic goodness of culture. Not to say that nature does not have its place, but it is a place that stands below culture and must be held at arms length away so as not to irrevocably poison culture. Nature is to be observed and controlled by culture and these binoculars are but another tool to facilitate that ideal.

References:

Cronon, William, The Uses Of Environmental History. Forest History Society and American Society for Environmental History, Environmental History Review, Vol. 17, No. 3, Autumn, 1993.

Friedman, Jonathan, The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 94, No. 4, December, 1992.

Pratt, Mary Louise, Imperial Eyes: travel writing and transculturation. Routledge, pages 1-70, 1993.

Sack, Robert D, The Consumer's World: Place as Context. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 78, No. 4, December, 1988.

Soper, Kate, Feminism and Ecology: Realism and Rhetoric in the Discourses of Nature. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 20, No. 3, Summer, 1995.

Someone Asked Me What Good do Human Beings Do for the Environment

Believe it or not humans do on occasion impact their environments in positive ways, even from an entirely ecological perspective. Throughout human history there have been instances where human beings have created entire landscapes that have been integral to the success of many species. One example that comes to mind off hand is the experience of native tribes in North America before the Colombian exchange. There is clear evidence that native tribes did not live in a "pristine" untouched environment before Europeans landed on their shores (for evidence please read the article "the Pristine Myth"). In fact native tribes altered their landscape in quite remarkable ways. Sometimes these alterations degraded the environment, and sometimes they enhanced specific characteristic to the benefit of certain species.

Perhaps the most notable of these positive alterations was the creation of the North American prairie grasslands. Evidence shows that had Native Americans not used techniques like controlled burning, that much of the species rich grassland would have persisted as a woody forest. Though, obviously, in our times of destruction of forests and increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere a woody forest would be considered more desirable, that was not an issue in the 16th century. The result of their techniques of land management was the establishment of many unique flowering plant species and the increased success of North American ruminants such as the Bison. True that this was for selfish reasons, because it was an animal that was very useful to them, but nevertheless, their practices had a positive effect on the biodiversity of North America.

Modern examples of purely positive effects are harder to find, but much of the work being done in the field of environmental management and conservation is of a positive nature. We are, unfortunately, not talking about big business here or any strictly money making endeavour, but there are countless small scale environmental projects that are designed to reap benefits for the planet as a whole. Off the top of my head I can remember a specific project being undertaken in Israel in the Mediterranean sea. Scientists there have created a coral farm in shallow waters off the coast of Israel where they nurture corals to maturity. Once ready they take them to the reef and give them a head start on life. I would, without a doubt, consider this to be a positive impact. Would these corals, be in trouble if it had not been for us in the first place? Perhaps not, but it is important to note that not all environmental shortcomings are anthropogenic in nature. Events happen beyond our control that have just as detrimental effects as anything we are capable of.

We, like all other species on this planet, are a part of the ecosystem and have a role that has both positive and negative impacts. Through modern agricultural & industrial practices we have, unfortunately, severely tipped the balance toward negative impacts, but that does not negate the fact that we are part of the biota of this planet and an equal partner with all other living things in the care of it.

Image completely unrelated to the post. I just felt like it.

Good Hair Day!

Excluding really dumb people who think that length of hair should be determined by gender, the one thing everybody I know can agree they like about me is my hair. When I was young, that was the thing that made girls want to come home with me. I think in a lot of ways it still might be and for the most part I am okay with that fact.

Sometimes I do want to be listened to and loved & respected for my words, after all I am the diatribein, but other times it is just nice to be the boy with the lovely hair. Today I was having a nice hair day so I thought I would take some photos that let it shine through. I know that most people care more about the words, but I feel like posting pictures. I hope you can forgive me and enjoy the shininess of my hair anyway.

Please click on the pictures to see them in full size. Thumbnails are for losers!

Redefining the F word that constitutions pay lip service to.

Sorry it has been a while since I last posted here. The rigours of school as well as life sometime ware on me. I don't quite understand how people have so much time and motivation to do so much unfun stuff. There are only so many hours a day / week I can spend doing stuff that isn't something that my body & mind find to be relaxing. But there are all these people with jobs on top of school on top of commuting, and I don't see how they don't break down and do something crazy... Then again, since the implementation of capitalism, we have seen the invention of people suddenly breaking out guns and killing themselves & as many of their peers as they can muster in workplaces and schools alike. You don't actually think that is a coincidence do you?

Still, the "winners" are those willing to work more & more. 40 hours a week is the average, but 60 will get you ahead, right? I am always confused as to why they are willing to do it. I get two excuses: 1. I have to just to survive & 2. I wouldn't know what to do if I wasn't working as much as I do. Have we gotten so warped that people don't know how to enjoy life anymore? I love free time. I am never bored. My brain is racing coming up with new adventures for me, myself, I and anyone that wants to join in. Okay, so most of it isn't any fun for others, but that's not the end of the world. They could always invite me to their fun and I might just join in. As for #1: Well, if so many people feel that way, the answer is clear: STOP IT AND DEMAND A BETTER LIFE! If so many people are that unhappy, the oppressive force can not hold back the flood of human will. I guess organization is key and we lack the social cohesion to be effective in any real attempt at true freedom.

The most important thing to remember is that YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE. That's it; no second go around. Screw it up if you will, but at least screw it up trying to have what you think is fun and a worthwhile way to spend your time. Work for things you don't enjoy / believe in as least as humanly possible and find your happiness for every moment you can get a hold on. It doesn't have to be big. For me those things are small and yet they are huge. Please don't give me the religious argument of some kind of next life as an answer to "you only live once". It is a fairytale for children that serves to empower those who would usurp your life. This is it. Your time, just like mine, is precious.

What has this got to do with these two pictures? Well, in them I am reading something very long and boring that is taking way too much of my time. True, I have balanced it with relaxing stuff so I can manage. But still, it is what I have to do sometimes, but it is NOT me and has nothing to do with me. If you want to get to actually know me the worst question to ask is what I do for a living. The right question is what do I do when I am not making a living and that should be everyone's get to know you question.

Rather not be reading, but at least I am naked!

When Purple Balls of Death Attack!

All Hail the mighty purple mirror ball of DOOM.
DANCE or it will crush you like the sedentary bug that you are!

In all seriousness though, I got my fancy pants & disco dancing shirt on, so I thought I would play the role (fool) for you. Obviously, this photo is not real, because if it were the sheer gravitational force of this giant mirror ball would surely suck up pets and small humans like a vacuum cleaner. I am in environmental science, but I have to admit that mirror ball communities are NOT my speciality.

This thing might rival the death star... yes, the purple death mirror ball. I see lots of potential for general mayhem emanating from such a source. So I guess we all should dance to prevent such a catastrophe of epic proportions. Plus it is healthy to dance. That is key: Remaining in good health, via dancing... yes... we should focus on the dancing health benefits over the massive destruction & loss of life if no dancing occurs when we suffer the wrath from the giant purple mirror ball of doom!

I long for the day when we can, once again, have more benevolence from our mirror balls, but people keep telling me the 70s are over.

The Story of the Suicidal Self-Centred Being

Reading all about the tropical rain forest ecosystem.

If you look carefully you can see a diagram of a lovely little tree frog in need of saving.

Read John Locke and you will understand what I mean. He was, for all intents & purposes, the inventor of the concept of property. His view was was simple: God made the earth and everything on it for man (note: not women) to use for his benefit. If land was left alone and not altered or worked on to service man, then it was being wasted and in a state of disrepute. To be on this earth and live on it by the means that nature had intended is irrational. In order for someone to have the rights to live on said land it must be put under cultivation and used to yield maximum benefits to mankind.

You would think that this is a simple attack on the environment and nature as a whole, but really it is an act of war against other people. So anthropocentric were people like John Locke that considerations for other beings were beyond ridiculous. His writings were not a manifesto of what to do with nature, but a way to displace native new worlders from the land they were living on by saying that the way they lived was irrational and that their use (or rather, non-use) of the land constituted negligence of the highest order.

That is the trick to understand when it comes to self-centred behaviour. Arguments beyond the scope of range of self can not be heard or acknowledged. It matters not what you say or how valid your arguments may be, they are not even in the same room. John Locke was arguing that other humans should have their rights taken away because they weren't doing enough to alter the environment, do you think he would be capable of understanding an argument that states an animal or a tree has as much right to live as he?

Relevance: All the fights we lead, protests we march and campaigns we start are against the very fabric of the law because all the laws of the "western" (expanding) world are still those of John Locke and his cohorts. They are the basis of our lives today. As per their instructions, we still do not have equal human rights and as long as that persists, the argument of giving rights to all living things is far away. So essentially, by law, purely environmental endeavours are muted before they are spoken. If you've spent a minute learning about environmental policy you will understand very quickly that the only time anything real ever gets done is when money flows into the pockets of one many of these anthropocentric barons of humanity. Nothing is ever done for ecology's sake and there is no change on the horizon. A lot more than half of us are still obsessed with the self and could never even consider the lives of others. This is fact.

So I am reading all about nature and wondering how I can halt the bulldozers from digging out another tract of forest the size of two football stadiums this week, but we here just happily re-elected the man who turns the key on the bulldozer. Not that it would matter, as I noted before, the bulldozers would still be going no matter who we elect. But you see, not even that is the issues. The forest has no feelings, it is ingrained. Just look at the debate today. All that matters are the human jobs. Killing millions of non-humans is okay if human jobs are saved/created. That is not a joke. That is real. Be us 6.8 billion to their 10s of thousands, it doesn't matter. One human life is worth infinitely more than a soon to be extinct species never to be heard from again; muted forever.

I must admit that I often like myself as a person. This is not something a humble person is supposed to say, but I do feel that way. Yet, if I knew things would change, I would put my life down before a species. I am unique and wonderful (at times) in my own way, but my unique wonderfulness cannot be compared to that of a whole population of another species. To even dream of such a thing is irrational & self-centred to me. And for a dose of irony, those same people who are so guilt laden to never say (or do, actually) they like themselves are the very same self-centred folk that put man above every living thing... maybe deep down they feel guilty.

All I know is that we can make all the little concessions and provisions we want. We can pay the lip service and create buzz words like sustainable development to placate our guilt; but nothing will ever truly change and no ecosystem on this planet will truly be safe from the human death machine until we overturn the words of John Locke and his supporters. Looking from all other's perspectives at this spinning ball that we inhabit is the only way to find happiness and harmony. The concept of exploitation must die or it will kill & exploit all that stands in its way and only a self-centred fool can't see that in the end it will kill the fool as well.

Frustration, thinking about the fate of the poor little frog!

Moody Poser (part I)

I have been busy with things this week so I don't have much time to think about the world renowned diatribes that I usually wrestle with on this blog. I will get back to my posting ways, but for now I just feel like posing for a picture to keep things going here. It's also the fact that I can kind of be a poser at sometimes too and I like this picture. Maybe I just feel like giving people a tour of the furniture in my home, that is always a possibility too. Either way, I hope someone enjoys my moody poser pictures.

I Wish You Were a Beer

Gees... these damn twist off tops can be quite the quandary.

I'm very oral. And no I don't mean that, but I could, but this is not that kind of post. I'll give you fair warning when it is... but back to oral fixations. I don't really have a bad case of that. I mean I am not, god forbid, a smoker (that's cigarettes - nothing against more healthy and fun smokable items) or a nail chewer. According to my mom I was never a big thumb sucker either.

So as far as I can tell this oral fixation is purely utilitarian. As long as I can remember I've resorted to mouth and teeth when confounded by trying to open something that I could fit into my mouth; sometimes even larger things. I can remember sitting in quiet contemplation on whether or not opening the wretched stuck item in question with my mouth was a possibility. At least I never tried to do that with something frozen, because the consequences could be rather drastic, but when a nice cold beer doesn't want to let you twist it open to let you at its golden wonderfulness, reverting to old habits to get at it is inevitable!

Success!

Suggestive Photography

I think part of getting a little bit older is increasing your doubt about your sexiness. I've never been one to look much at weights or even threaten to enter a gym and when you are young none of that really matters. I do however walk often and play sporty games when there is someone to play with and I have never been a big eater.

So recently I've started a daily photo journal and this blog and I like to post pictures. Me personally, I don't think there is that much difference in posting with clothes or naked, but the (puritanical) society we live in likes to draw lines. They like to put up warnings, qualifications and barriers to give the illusion that there is something different and lascivious if a naked picture abounds. And don't get me started on this whole notion that people under a certain arbitrary age should be barred from seeing people naked. That is a diatribe longer than any ever witnessed waiting to happen. But this is a happy post, not one filled with angst.

The other thing is that I often question how naked pictures of men are perceived compared to those of women. It seems like pictures of naked women are universally well received, while those of men often either are ignored or deemed disgusting. I for one, don't mind men's naked pictures, although I find pictures of just genitals to be boring. But to be truthful, I feel the same way about women's pictures in that regard. I don't want to be ignored and even though my body isn't that rock hard cliché that we all are supposed to think is the epitome of male sexuality I still occasionally like to put up photographs and be seen as a sexually exciting being. We all deserve that.

So with all that said, I'm still only posting half naked pictures. It's not much, but this isn't a male nudity blog. It is a blog about issues, me, and things I like to challenge people with. Today I challenge anyone to say that there is anything different about these suggestive photographs than anything else I have posted. Naked, not naked, half naked, I am Alex and this is me, sometimes pretty, sometimes not, but always authentically me.

Reflections on Things Left Behind

Some things are left behind; it's inevitable. Every move I have ever made has lost me something or another, even if it was the smallest of things. There was also a big move which intentionally left things with my parents that I was to reclaim at a later date. Some of those things did find their way to being reunited with me and some still sit in a room that I find difficult to even insinuate is mine, since my parents have themselves moved "my room" without me three times themselves.

There is another move that I didn't make that will always be the biggest move of my life. It too left a few nondescript things behind that I find a great deal of difficulty making meaning of. They are there and they exist and sometimes I wonder if they were left behind by chance, by neglect, or malice. I think all three are true actually, because it is not just one thing that got left behind. In the picture below we have a prime example of what I think is probably the middle category. It's just a thing and it doesn't have much meaning at all. In fact the only things that have meaning are the ones that we endow with importance of one sort or another.

I find it difficult to give this particular thing much importance. It is useful and that is nice. Maybe I should just be happy that a useful thing was left in my possession. But still I can''t help looking at it and thinking of who it touched and if they remember it being useful to them. I suppose the right course of action would be to let it go or throw it away, but I'm not one to junk useful things, even when they have a lot more meaning than they deserve.

Looking for Meaning

The Infamous Music Room

Surrounded by MusicThis Photo is above because the other one is kinda half naked, but you can see more of the room (and ME!) in the other one. This room didn't exist when I bought my home. It was constructed for the purpose of housing music.

Not so long ago I bought many a record; or is that many a CD... well both! And most good things on both, if available. The result was the thousands of lovely items you see before you. I know it is hard to tell, so I'll give a short description: There are 4 vinyl album racks of which you can see 2 in their entirety & the other 2 partially in the picture below (not so much in the one above), plus there are some records on the ground that poke out past the record racks. There are two more of the huge CD racks that you see at the far end of the picture, one is partially shown on the left side of the picture. There is also one more of the little CD racks. In total it is somewhere around 2500 items.

These days I don't buy so much music, not because of the mp3 craze as much as because I don't really have the money to be buying so much music. It is a sad state of affairs. See, the cool thing about my record collection is that if there was an artist I liked you could find EVERYTHING they EVER released in my collection; every single, album & almost any official release. I wouldn't go so far as to get identical singles/albums from different territories (like some people), but I would get any unique release with any exclusive song. There are many a Japanese CD with a bonus track or two to be found alongside an American or European release in there.

These days there are very few bands I follow that vigilantly. There is one that I have been a fan of since sometime in the 90s from Denmark of all places and in my mail today was a note to pick up their latest album (released 2 months ago) on VINYL. What's so special about that? The album was ONLY released on vinyl in Denmark & Scandinavia where they are still popular. It warms my heart to have a little piece of what was once a regular occurrence in my life still going on. A special band from a special far away place that lets me dream and feel far away times. The irony is that the reason why I still listen to them and not most of the other bands in this collection of mine, is that they NEVER stayed in that time. They kept moving forward, always updating and changing their sound. Oh to be far away from the stifling noise of record company execs and hardheaded fans that want people to never change. The beauty of music is that you can never quite get your hands on it, because it is always just over that next hill calling you. Thank you for always changing.

looking emo - being silly

Yesterday's post was incredibly serious and I did claim in my description that I was a terribly unserious guy. So I feel I must remedy this just a tad. I like to post pictures here more than in my flickr account because they don't get size limited. That said, I am not a big fan of repeating exactly what I am posting over there in this blog. In fact, I guarantee this space will continue to be more about words than photos. What I often do is put a different photo taken at the same time as one that is uploaded to flickr. This is what I am doing today. Do people ever click on the pictures to get them in the full size? I always do. I absolutely hate small sized photos that are everywhere on the internet. It is a big reason why I think web spaces like facebook are useless. What's the point of uploading pictures if the website makes them tiny?

Anyway, today's photo fits the mold described above to a tee. Someone called me emo in another picture in this set. Ha! Maybe... why don't you let me know and also let me know what you would like to see more of in this blog: Pictures, diatribes, personal events in my life, or something else. I don't promise you'll get what you want, but letting me know won't hurt. Okay... that was less heavy!

Representing What?

Okay, this theory that I am going to try to explain is pretty much mapped out in my mind. It took many years of observation, reading and thought to get at it and I'm pretty sure that I am not going to be able to do it justice on this first go, but what is important to me is to establish the paradigm in my readers minds so that when I later come back to the theory to explain further or to add detail there is groundwork to expand on. So this will be a rudimentary look at the role of government, business, and democracy and what we perceive as being all three.

First I would just like to say that I don't really like the word "democracy" as it is a misnomer. All governments of the world that called themselves "democracies" are actually republics. This is a good thing. I don't want to live in an actual democracy and I'm pretty sure that very few other people would either. If one lived in a democracy you would have to vote on everything. You would vote on the budget, you would vote on tax law, you would vote on every minutia of government. In reality it would mean that you would effectively be a part of the house of representatives along with whatever else you do. And not just you but everyone. It would literally paralyse society and nothing could get done. Beyond that, it would be pure majority rule so some of the most puerile but popular sentiments would be enacted into law. An excellent example of this is the California repeal of gay marriage that happened in November. That was pure democracy in action - GREAT! So for the purpose of this treatise the word "democracy" will be used as a place holder for "A Government of representatives that is voted in by the public." That is what everybody thinks democracy is anyway.

But that is really an ancillary notion anyway, because I am here to tell you that NONE of you live in a democracy (be it literal or representative). The last bastions of true representative government (democracy) have more than fallen by the wayside. For the purpose of this argument I will use the United States as a default example of evidence to prove the theory, but most of the observations are apt worldwide, even if they are on a much less egregious scale.

On Tuesday a new "government" will come into administration in the US. It was voted in (we assume fairly) by a majority of voting Americans. This new administration to the casual observer is markedly different to the previous one. It is considered to be more fair and further to the left and indeed it is, but the important thing to think about is how. How is it different, other than superficially, to the previous administration? There is a difference, but the difference is not as we perceive it because no true power actually changed hands. For us to understand that concept we must first understand who has actual power. Is it really the body of government that was just elected? How did the people elected gain enough public awareness to be elected? Someone had to pay, right? But campaign finance is just the tip of the iceberg.

You see the issue is no longer the fact that politicians take money from corporate lobbyists and interest groups that want them to do their bidding. No, it is that these corporations donate to all the candidates of both (all important) parties and are a fundamental and indistinguishable part of actual government. Laws are enacted to serve the interests of business/corporations at all times. Even when someone like Obama speaks of "creating jobs" he is in fact speaking both for the people and for the corporations. The voice has become one and the same. What kind of jobs do you think he is trying to stimulate? There will be no new government positions being made available. This is about how to satisfy big corporate interests and to make it desirable for them to expand the labour force. These new jobs will all be corporate jobs. These new jobs will all make corporations more money than they would lose in salary.

This is not to say that Obama is any more in or out of bed with corporations than the previous administration. The fact is that the question if he is or isn't is irrelevant. He is equally in bed, because his administration is NOT the government. His administration like the ones that came before it acts as an intermediary between the true government (corporations) and the people (voters). Elected officials' role is to represent the people's wishes to the actual government (that is not elected, but rules without limits) so as to form a more peaceful relationship between corporation & worker (see master & slave). The biggest difference between someone like Bush & Obama is which sector will get the most concessions. Will it be the religious zealots (Bush) or the blue collar workers (Obama)? In this sense there is a true difference, but not a fundamental one. Who will be better off might change within the lower classes, but the ability and opportunity for corporations to acquire and hold money & power will not change one iota. The true government has not changed and will not change.

As per my norm, I will post for you an apt photo. In this case, in contemplation.

Only this time it comes in the middle as a much needed break from all of these words!

Let us look at the contentious "health care" system in the United States versus Cuba. Cuba is one of the last remaining strongholds of (somewhat*) communism. Cuba spends the least per capita on health care of the nations in the top 25 nations in regards life expectancy at birth. Consequently, they are near the bottom of that top 25. Not surprisingly it is due to a lack of specialized modern machines, but not due to the availability of doctors. Still, considering the lack of funds, to be in the top 25 is impressive. The nation that is right beside them (less than 0.1 years longer in life expectancy) is the United States and they are the nation in the world that spends the most per capita on health care. It's not even that they spend the most, they spend almost double the next highest spending nation does. And what does that get them: A life expectancy equal to that of Cuba. The irony is delicious.

Here is the United States spending billions on fancy machinery and all sorts of things and yet can only manage a life expectancy of one of the poorest nations on the planet. Why is this? It has everything to do with the tiered health care system in the United States. Some people have optimum care, some people have adequate care while others have no care whatsoever. Those at the bottom of the tree, not surprisingly, have high mortality rates and the ones in the middle have only a somewhat better chance of longevity. But the question remains if you are spending so much money shouldn't it even out. Well no, by spending more money on a small group you may be extending their lives by as much as humanly possible, but the others getting sub par care will disproportionately have shorter and unhealthier lives. Because there are more of them they influence the statistics to reflect their situation. But if other countries manage an average of 5 years longer lifespans with half the money spent, why can''t the United States (spending double) get at least equal results? For the answer to this you must follow the money. Unlike the other countries where money spent on health care directly benefits patients in the United States more than half of the money spent on health care winds up in corporate coffers. Either in the medical profession itself (doctors exorbitant salaries) or with insurance companies who are the largest holders of assets. Insurance companies in the United States act like gangsters skimming a percentage off of the money spent on health care, but they don't skim just a percentage, they get the lion's share of the pie.

This is just one order of corporations, there are others in other industries (transportation, media, etc, etc). All of them act in much the same way. Can anything be done about this? The answer is no, not without a serious revolution, because it is not a question of government anymore. They ARE the government. It is already established. They set the laws; they set the rules. The role of elected officials is to operate as best they can under the rule of law of the corporations. Now I know very well that in the rest of the world the insurance health care system analogy is not apt, but I used it to demonstrate a clear line. The way that mass media corporations and others operate throughout most of the rest of the world is exactly same. The simple reason I chose this example was because it is the most concise explanation possible and as you can see this is already a long argument.

I'm not really done here, but I have been writing for two hours and I think I have laid enough groundwork for some kind of understanding. It is important to try to be able to see who really holds power in the world and why. If anyone thinks that politicians hold any true power then they are not seeing the whole scope of life and interactions between policy makers worldwide. Only careful analysis of facts can show these connections and I do not mean to upset anyone by saying that they are not living in a world where the government is accountable to them, but it is a sad reality and the only way that anything will ever change is by first understanding what exactly is going on.

*- No actual communist government as per Karl Marx's manifesto has ever been enacted on earth. Cuba, and other countries in the past, have used a hierarchal government that is loosely based on communist theory but does not employ the bottom up approach & complete freedom that is central to any true communist society.

Not a food related post

I have a new socio-political post on the back burner. It is an idea I've been cooking up for months and it is damn fresh. Fresh enough that I don't think I have heard anyone else ever explore the topic in the manner that I will be doing when I get down to writing it. I think it might be some of my best thought out work if I can pull it together. But I want to give it another day to stew for a bit. A little seasoning won't hurt and anyone reading is probably full from all of the diatribes below already. So I am planning on serving it up tomorrow and hopefully it will be a tasty treat.

Now with all of those cooking metaphors I'm sure you were expecting some food related picture next, right? Well sorry, there will be no food for you! Instead, today I felt like posting this collage of faces in full size. My free flickr account puts a limit on the size, but here I get to post pictures in full, so I wanted to have this one up, because I think it is pretty cool.

Cultural Sexism vs. Natural Equality

I am taking a class called the Environment from a Historical & Cultural Perspective. THIS, is right up my alley. Low and behold what do we talk about in the first two classes but a feminist approach to looking at the relationship between culture and nature and how the dichotomy between the two closely mirrors that of male vs. female from a sexist perspective in historical terms. It was fascinating. The readings for this week were literally speaking to the exact sexist things that I had experienced just a few days earlier. Here they were on paper and relating to global issues of how the concept of duality (master & servant) is harmful.

The crux was that we as a society view nature from a sexist perspective. We have a view that it must be dominated, taken control of and used for our benefit. Nature is somehow lower than us and to be used (or abused) in any way we see fit. The reasoning is that it falls outside of what we see as culture (the good) and is just natural & unkempt (the bad). With this point of view we see ourselves as a dominant civilizer of nature and that it is our responsibility to take care of it, because it needs taking care of! Obviously I, and some others, have a divergent point of view. But as I've stated below I take the feminist position in regards to these subjects. Nature is to be loved as an equal and as part of us. My solution: Declare that nature is CULTURE!

And to keep going with my silly pictures to match serious posts theme:
I give you an actual picture from the lecture in class today!