rants
Warning: my opinions are probably offensive to many!
Three things have bugged me lately:
#1: Disney is straying into the porno/tease style of movie-making for kids. Case in point, "High School Musical". I thought it was an example of no/flat plot and no engaging characters thrown together to showcase some cute, very scrubbed, rich kids dancing and singing. The tease part? the near-kisses that had my granddaughter exclaiming "They almost kissed, Grandma!" That it was "almost", is so unrealistic of high school sophomores that it should elicit huge guffaws of hilarity!! She claimed that the "villainess", her favorite character because she is "pretty", became "nice" in the end. Hmmmnnn. I'd say that was a huge stretch.
Oh, do I need to explain the porno part? Like the "stars" of a lot of porno, the characters are not human, ie they are very attractive, clean, well-dressed, upper-to middle-class, "costumed" caricatures (rather than real people: three- (or more) dimensional, complex characters with the human and baffling motivations real people have) with hardly more than just the cute "idiosynchratic interest" in addition to the stereotypical "group " they fit in (skaters, jocks, cheerleaders, brainy-nerds...need I go on?). The conflict is little more than a cute "set" in which to showcase some forgettable songs (supposedly with a moral) and lots of dancing, very similar to the "set" poses and styles of lots of forgettable porno (which I won't name here to spare those with weak stomachs). Without a strong plot and complex engaging characters, any supposed moral is lost except to an adult trying to justify buying into it to please the child addicted to Disney.
#2: The Canadian bishops of the Anglican church decision not to bless same-sex unions, has me pissed off again at most religions in general. Churches have been obsessed for eons with controlling sexuality in general, women's sexuality specifically. Do you notice that all these bishops are male? That most religions' bureaucracy and leadership is male? What are men so afraid of when it comes to sexuality? I so wish they were more concerned with many many other issues!
All of a sudden, some churches are advertising "green" concerns -- way too little, too late -- considering their silence on the Bush debacle in general! It's no wonder then, that Bush was able to appeal to the fears of the religious right and portray himself as the one who would resist all those invasions from the "others".
I would have thought that women in the US would have been rather united in opposition to such an administration so unfriendly to women's concerns, ie social welfare, health, peace, the environment. But, I suppose in a nation with a Christian tradition and history, women in the US, thoughtful, caring women, are torn between being "spiritual" and being "sexual", as if being sexual automatically means you cannot be spiritual. No wonder the Virgin Mary was invented to replace the lusty goddesses of the pagan world. A sexual woman is so ....SCARY! psst: she's probably dirty too! She can't possibly be spiritual or a mother or caring or moral, can she?? omg, it infuriates me. You just can't handle a multi-faceted woman!
#3: Fathers in some strange parts of the US are apparently undergoing ceremonial "Purity Balls" with their daughters. To me it smacks of a twisted over-interest in their daughters' sexuality, ie they are so committed to caring for their daughters because of the over-arching goal of producing virgin-brides? Arrrgh! What about teaching girls to make self-confident decisions and to negotiate for what they want and need from a position of power in the tricky world of all human relationships, not just avoiding sexuality! And I'm not all that sure a father is the best person to tell a girl, in the words of Khrystian, on the dr. phil show, "who she is to be in life." I think we innately know who we are, from the day we are born: fabulous, juicy, interesting, complex, passionate, creative forces of nature. People in our lives are just too willing to tell us and get very busy right away telling us, that that is not who we are supposed to be, who we should be! (get back into the tiny, tight, clean, little, manageable box so we can handle you!! omg!!)
Sorry, this rant is all over the place, but I haven't had time to line up all the reasons for my disgust in some semblance of order. I'm just reacting from instinct here. My instinct tells me its just more of the same: a patriarchal judao-christian prejudice against anything that threatens the status quo -- ie male-centric domination of everything, nature, society, children, women, sexuality.
Three things have bugged me lately:
#1: Disney is straying into the porno/tease style of movie-making for kids. Case in point, "High School Musical". I thought it was an example of no/flat plot and no engaging characters thrown together to showcase some cute, very scrubbed, rich kids dancing and singing. The tease part? the near-kisses that had my granddaughter exclaiming "They almost kissed, Grandma!" That it was "almost", is so unrealistic of high school sophomores that it should elicit huge guffaws of hilarity!! She claimed that the "villainess", her favorite character because she is "pretty", became "nice" in the end. Hmmmnnn. I'd say that was a huge stretch.
Oh, do I need to explain the porno part? Like the "stars" of a lot of porno, the characters are not human, ie they are very attractive, clean, well-dressed, upper-to middle-class, "costumed" caricatures (rather than real people: three- (or more) dimensional, complex characters with the human and baffling motivations real people have) with hardly more than just the cute "idiosynchratic interest" in addition to the stereotypical "group " they fit in (skaters, jocks, cheerleaders, brainy-nerds...need I go on?). The conflict is little more than a cute "set" in which to showcase some forgettable songs (supposedly with a moral) and lots of dancing, very similar to the "set" poses and styles of lots of forgettable porno (which I won't name here to spare those with weak stomachs). Without a strong plot and complex engaging characters, any supposed moral is lost except to an adult trying to justify buying into it to please the child addicted to Disney.
#2: The Canadian bishops of the Anglican church decision not to bless same-sex unions, has me pissed off again at most religions in general. Churches have been obsessed for eons with controlling sexuality in general, women's sexuality specifically. Do you notice that all these bishops are male? That most religions' bureaucracy and leadership is male? What are men so afraid of when it comes to sexuality? I so wish they were more concerned with many many other issues!
All of a sudden, some churches are advertising "green" concerns -- way too little, too late -- considering their silence on the Bush debacle in general! It's no wonder then, that Bush was able to appeal to the fears of the religious right and portray himself as the one who would resist all those invasions from the "others".
I would have thought that women in the US would have been rather united in opposition to such an administration so unfriendly to women's concerns, ie social welfare, health, peace, the environment. But, I suppose in a nation with a Christian tradition and history, women in the US, thoughtful, caring women, are torn between being "spiritual" and being "sexual", as if being sexual automatically means you cannot be spiritual. No wonder the Virgin Mary was invented to replace the lusty goddesses of the pagan world. A sexual woman is so ....SCARY! psst: she's probably dirty too! She can't possibly be spiritual or a mother or caring or moral, can she?? omg, it infuriates me. You just can't handle a multi-faceted woman!
#3: Fathers in some strange parts of the US are apparently undergoing ceremonial "Purity Balls" with their daughters. To me it smacks of a twisted over-interest in their daughters' sexuality, ie they are so committed to caring for their daughters because of the over-arching goal of producing virgin-brides? Arrrgh! What about teaching girls to make self-confident decisions and to negotiate for what they want and need from a position of power in the tricky world of all human relationships, not just avoiding sexuality! And I'm not all that sure a father is the best person to tell a girl, in the words of Khrystian, on the dr. phil show, "who she is to be in life." I think we innately know who we are, from the day we are born: fabulous, juicy, interesting, complex, passionate, creative forces of nature. People in our lives are just too willing to tell us and get very busy right away telling us, that that is not who we are supposed to be, who we should be! (get back into the tiny, tight, clean, little, manageable box so we can handle you!! omg!!)
Sorry, this rant is all over the place, but I haven't had time to line up all the reasons for my disgust in some semblance of order. I'm just reacting from instinct here. My instinct tells me its just more of the same: a patriarchal judao-christian prejudice against anything that threatens the status quo -- ie male-centric domination of everything, nature, society, children, women, sexuality.
Labels: churches and religion, patriarchy, pornography, same-sex unions, sexual tease, virginity
posted by Kati at 1:23 p.m.
2 Comments:
Disney is weird. Actually all childrens stuff is weird these days. I guess I am just getting older. When I have my neices, they occasionally watch things on Nickelodeon. And the depictions of girls and minorities is troubling. Great blog. Thanks for visiting mine.
Great rant, ;-)
I agree with you on the "purity balls" - it just seems flat wierd to me.
as for the soccer moms that voted for bush - it seems that somehow he made them feel safe. go figure. personally, I'd think that the notion of little Johnny marching off to war would make me feel anything but safe, but.... they are continuing to insist that "if we don't stop 'them' in Iraq, they will follow us home and wage war here." It's all quite strange. But - evangelical christians seems quite practiced at suspending disbelief.
Post a Comment
<< Home