Log in

No account? Create an account
Hogarth judge

February 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com
I won't be forced to breed children!

Film shown in a college class on 'gender'

I share her concern with the omnipresence of advertising, and the perceived need to insinuate it everywhere. I spend more and more time on the internet and games and less time watching TV because it helps keep it at bay.

On the other hand, to blame advertising for human sexual psychology is a bit much. Advertisers don't create the instincts they exploit.

Pet peeve. Never use the word 'gender'. It's either a grating euphemism for sex, or it's an ideological statement that says that human sexuality is "socially constructed" rather than something you're born with. If the ideology behind "gender" is true, anti-homosexual conversion therapy ought to work better than the observed results; and so for that matter would gay recruiting. This is a viewpoint I choose not to endorse, and if you use 'gender' as a euphemism for 'sex' you may create the misleading impression that you do endorse it. People aren't French nouns; they don't have genders, they have sexes.


You can trust Lady Gaga on this, and as we know she is inerrant in the original autographs. Everybody literally is "born that way."

It's absolutely vital to accept this, because if this is not the case, you might change; you might choose to change, and you could be made to change. Whatever your sexual identity or orientation, fortunately it's wholly unlearned. No one taught or suggested it to you. This is in fact the insight that leads to liberation and respect. It's a happy truth that all of these things are biologically determined. This is the problem with 'gender'.

It's a problem shared by a lot of leftist thinking, and one of the reasons we have no left wing in any meaningful sense in the USA. Social constructionism (SC - not retyping that every time it comes up) got them. Jean Kilbourne is a relatively mild example, and I've seen her first film and watched the first half of the video. She makes many excellent points. On the other hand, she compares advertising to a 'toxic environment', and seems to believe that changing its content would lead to meaningful social change.

To the SC left, it's about 'discourse' rather than 'resources'. Oppression is defined as becoming 'invisible' or even more often, 'having your voice unheard' by the 'hegemony' of the 'dominant patriarchal paradigm'. It's not about access to food, water, medical supplies, education, opportunity, leisure, and the other things that develop human beings and enable human cultures to begin with.

The baleful temptation here is that your struggle becomes purely a war of words. It gives the leisure to imagine that your paper deconstructing the privilege of the patriarchal phallus in Green Eggs and Ham isn't an unintelligible piece of bullshit no one will ever read. It strikes a mighty blow against the dominant paradigm. Here, it says so itself.

Your capitalist masters, and their advertising lackeys, will in fact make a note of your concerns. Soon the stock photos will blossom forth with improbable Diversity. A multicultural rainbow of spokespeople will read the pitches. Every multicultural identity and every socially progressive cause becomes ingredients in a SC entity you can buy into. You can drive a car that saves the earth. You can buy your fair trade coffee. And they sit in the countinghouse and smile. They won, and they know it.

My longstanding concrete proposal has always been: ban all advertising on Sunday. Let there be one day of the week where the noise of buying and selling is silent outside the shops themselves --- I wouldn't force them closed. People won't have to listen to it if they don't want to. This is an old idea. It once has a religious justification. I think it works fine without one.