A · Tale · of · Two · Settees

Mostly, the music I listen to while working has no lyrics. A lot of jazz and classical music. Less there is the tendency for distraction.

From my undergraduate years all the way up to the first decade of the 21st century, I began collecting music of all sorts. Tower Records was the place to go because it was nearby and they had good stuff. In Claremont, Rhino Records was the go-to place.

I collect less music now. However, of the music that I have collected, very little gets listened to. Of the past decade, I would say Amy Weinhouse, British Sea Power, and maybe a few others, are still played from time to time. I recently rediscovered Arcade Fire's Funeral and was so happy to see that I still really like it. Or rather, I thought it was okay the first time around, but now, eight years later, I like it a lot. Chances are, I may continue to like it for a long time. 

What music of this decade will I listen to or "rediscover" next decade?

  

On one hand, my absorption of Zooey Deschanel, ukeleles, OK Go, Glee, and twee indie choreography is well beyond my personal saturation point. Hello Darkness, my old friend, please come and take the saccharine flavor out of my mouth.

On the other hand, my college classmate's wedding proposal is pretty impressive. That cannot be denied. I cannot say that I was especially close to him, but I probably did interact with him from time to time. Although English was my speciality, I was also in the film department and did some theatre at a time when I thought screenwriting might be fun. So I definitely remember him, but unfortunately, not very well. Today, through a Facebook friend, I learned about his little music video. 

Anyway, without further ado, here it is. If you live in Portland, Oregon and were not asked to participate in his wedding proposal music video, you should probably feel bad. It appears that the entire city was involved in its production.

  

Someone on my Facebook feed posted the following video by a blogger who calls herself "girlwriteswhat." I am somewhat near the video's halfway mark as I write this. I've a lot of work to do, and probably shouldn't be spending time debating issues irrelevant to the work at hand, but I have to say that the video has succeeded in upsetting me.

The issue is over whether a distinction can be made between the sexual objectification of men and women, and the author of this video blog provides links to an article on Jezebel as well as a couple links to some blogs. "Why is it that when a man calls a woman 'sexy' he is sexist and why is it that when a woman calls a man 'sexy,' she is not?" is the essential question the video blogger is responding to.

My two cents on this matter are as follows: I'm not really sure that either one escapes the charge of sexism. The objectification of men in advertisements is beginning to lead to the sorts of inferiority complexes that women have been complaining of for years. A noticeable rise in plastic surgery among men, for instance, can be cited as evidence of this. So, marketing the "ideal man" or "ideal woman" and much of marketing in general cannot be said to be good things. (Mind you, discussing the ideal body in terms of physical health is quite another thing, and isn't really the subject being discussed anyway). So, yeah...objectification and commodification of the human form...probably not good. (We can ask ourselves a more complicated question: "So, does that mean ancient Greek statues aren't good? Certainly, the Greeks were 'marketing' the ideal human through these, yes?" My answer: "Hmm...let me think about that. I don't think I can deliver a good response in the time and space that I have right now. Sorry.")

Girlwriteswhat cites Dan Savage, who suggests that we objectify all the time--gays and straights alike. Very well. Let us at least accept this as true. However, then we should probably ask when and where conversations about sexual attraction are taking place. This Summer Olympics will be different in that women beach volleyball players will be allowed to wear shorts instead of bikinis. In the past, bikinis were the regulation outfits, because whoever heads women's beach volleyball wished to attract a larger straight male audience. So, here you had an instance where women were marked as "sexy" without ever really having the choice of deciding to volunteer this information to the world. Whereas sexual attraction occurs naturally in this world because of our libidos, in this particular instance, some marketing agency thought it was a good idea to use sexual attraction alone (rather than say, talent and skill) as a means of selling women's beach volleyball to male audiences. (Granted, now there is the problem of false choices. This is the sort of thing that happens when a spouse says, "Would you like to come with me to see my relatives?" Perhaps, the spouse doesn't really want to see those relatives, but what choice does the person have? If the person says, "No," then he/she will have to explain why not. The only way of avoiding this predicament is to say "yes," even if "no" is the more honest answer. "You are coming with me to see my relatives" is actually in some ways kinder than "Wouldn't you like to come?" because in the first instance, one can still say to oneself, "I am coming, but only under protest." In the latter instance, one is actually forced into wanting to come. Likewise, the woman who decides she doesn't want to wear the bikini may be labeled as "frigid" for not "wanting" to please her audience. Trouble, trouble...)

The trickier questions are: "Why do men wear what they wear and why do women wear what they wear?" and "If a woman decides to wear a particular outfit, shouldn't she expect and doesn't she deserve ogling?" As I said at the beginning, I don't really have the time to be discussing this issue and I should be directing my energy to my coursework instead of this, so instead, I'll leave these as open questions to be addressed.

I will, however, take the time to comment that I disagree with Girlwriteswhat's conclusion on the matter. She seems to observe that we choose the clothes we wear as a potentially unconscious, yet nevertheless deliberate, attempt to attract a mate. Here, she seems to be appealing to evolutionary psychology, which I disagree with. There are certain hypotheses, philosophies, etc. that seem to work as follows: the philosopher looks out the window and sees something, and then describes exactly what is seen and calls it a "philosophy." Evolutionary psychology seems to be precisely that: we exist in a male privileged society where wealth distribution is highly unequal, and the violence (or the threat thereof) is frequently used to maintain order. Therefore, these things must indicate that evolutionary psychology works, because we all were once cavemen, and this sort of thing reflects cavemen society. The end! I oversimplify, of course, but I nevertheless see an element of "looking out the window and describing what I see" in evolutionary psychology. It doesn't try particularly hard to analyze social relations or to sort out methods for leveling the playing field among men and women. It merely accepts what it sees and calls it a day. This is all well and good for those who breathe the rarified air of the Olympians--those who are already in a place of privilege--but of course it is horribly unjust to everyone else. Thus, it is frequently no surprise when one sees conservative politicians appealing to such determinist philosophies--there is no threat to the status quo.

Anyway, I'll leave this video here and get on with my work now.

In a Guardian editorial entitled "Israel's gay propaganda war," queer theorist Jasbir Puar suggested that a Brand Israel-funded campaign was utilizing LGBT-friendly advertisements as a means of condemning Palestine. Brand Israel would like the West to know that it is the only Middle Eastern nation that welcomes gays with open arms.

Puar dispels the myth, first, by demonstrating that not all of Israel is progressive and then argues that such progressive branding uses our struggle for civil rights as a means of ridding another group of theirs. She coins the term "pinkwashing," which like "greenwashing," is used to connote a form of deceptive marketing.

I bring this up because pinkwashing seems alive and well not only in Israel but also the United States. A recent article in The Advocate, entitled "One Million Moms Angry About Same-Sex Kiss in Urban Outfitters Catalog" begs for our outrage against those nosy homophobic cranks who don't like pictures of women affectionately kissing. This is all well and good, but The Advocate’s author fails to remind us that not too long ago that Richard Hayne, Urban Outfitter president, supported Santorum’s campaign bid as Culture Warrior in Chief.

The Urban Outfitter advertisement should be a cause for concern. First, there is the issue of the eroticization of lesbian relationship for the pleasure of straight male audiences. Do these young women kiss for their own pleasure or for the readers'? In this case, the photograph is not particularly pornographic in context—the kiss appears to be the chaste contact of lips and nothing more—but it remains pornographic in other ways. In this instance, we should discuss the pornography of guilt. Just as Starbuck’s makes it known far and wide that their coffee is “fair trade” for marketing rather than humanitarian concerns, so too is this kiss the LGBT equivalent of fair trade marketing. These young women do in fact kiss for our pleasure, albeit not for our sexual pleasure, but rather for our ability to remind one another one another, "So long as two people love each other, that should be all that matters" (©, TM, Patent pending). There is also the pornography of outrage, in this case that of One Million Moms. In the end, all that matters is that we get to recite our little overheard sound-byte while forgetting that Urban Outfitters does not play fairly with others.

What I resent about this photograph is that our desire for our basic civil rights is being relegated to a general marketing campaign for anyone wishing to acquire their progressive bona fides. We are the cause du jour, which is great for Greg and me, since this signals the end of DOMA, but this form of marketing also cheapens our cause and who we are, relegating us to little more than Madison Avenue commodities.

I hate purchasing jeans. Andy Warhol once praised jeans, Coca-cola, and other pop culture items for making us more egalitarian. Both rich and poor, young and old, all drink Coke, eat hamburgers, and wear blue jeans. However, few of us care to look like our neighbors. Simultaneously, few of us want to not not look like our neighbors. Thus, comes fashion, which negotiates the tricky terrain of looking the same, but different.

But I have little patience for the fashion game.

Purchasing ordinary chinos is far less of a challenge, as I am usually fairly capable of finding precisely what I want in the discount section of Banana Republic. For instance, I have one pair of brown trousers with faint pinstripes, which have lasted a surprisingly long time. Both the cut and the material were next to perfect. They are ideal for everyday activities, long plane trips (which involve lots of sitting, which leads to wrinkling), and are just dressy enough for semi-formal occasions. Oh...and they require very little maintenance. Oh...and I got them on sale for about $20.

However, every now and then I do enjoy wearing jeans. The trouble is that with all things where variety exists, there really is no variety. For me, "variety" has usually meant "we have everything except for what you need." For instance, I have a small foot. Shoe distributers frequently assume that people with my foot size don't exist. I imagine that they discovered this after going over sales and inventory schedules. So, they simply decline to sell shoes in my size now. Since I am unable to purchase shoes from these distributers, their assumption becomes a self-fulfilled prophesy. By the power of the Invisible Hand, my foot has ceased to exist! (Fortunately, the shoe problem has been recently solved by a recent visit to a nearby Bass Clothing outlet near where I live.)

On the whole, except for the aforementioned purchase of chinos, clothes shopping is a very painful process, and usually finds me cursing corporatism, malls, clerks' scripted greetings, and customer satisfaction surveys.

I've had the same three pairs of jeans now for about five or six years, and I am starting to admit that they seem to appear a little worn--but there is still some life in them. The trouble is that right around the time I purchased them, Levi's produced jeans using a form of denim that relied on far fewer synthetic materials than they do today. The cloth was also thicker feeling, and thus more resistant to wear. 

I cannot feel comfortable in a pair of jeans unless they meet the following criteria:

1. They must be dark blue
2. They must not appear faded or worn (I realize that jeans will become faded over time, but I prefer the fading to be the result of my having worn them)
3. The fabric must be denim and not some synthetic polyester-looking substitute
4. They should be slim (i.e. no balloon pants), but not constricting. As with all my clothes, I like a fitted feel, but this does not necessarily imply that I want my clothes to appear as though they shrunk on me.

The idea is that I want something that will look reasonably good without making me look as though I'm trying to be fashionable. I don't want to have to play the game of constantly trying to appear current. I do not enjoy being a consumer and I remain unconvinced that ending is better than mending. Yet, both slim and shiny continue to be taken to extremes, as evidenced by the sort of shrunken sharkskin suits popularized by Michael Bublé and others. Such clothing always gives the appearance of lasting only a day.

At the time that I bought my old jeans, Levi's made a brand called 514, which met my exacting criteria. Since then, however, reinterpretations of that particular design have led to a violation of one of the four listed criteria, and thus have been unsuitable. I have considered going back to the traditional 501 design, but even these have been tampered with, and anyway, they frequently cost far more than I wish to spend.

The next time I feel brave enough, though, I believe I will begin a new search, and this time I will probably make a bulk purchase to last me a full decade, at which point I may either buy more jeans or give the project up as a lost cause.

Bill Maher has recently posted an article called "Please stop being offended", in which he ventures the following queston: "When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like?"

He refers to recent controversies stirred up by "Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried, the Super Bowl halftime show and the ESPN guys who used the wrong cliché for Jeremy Lin after everyone else used all the others." Also, Rush Limbaugh. Also, himself.

Maher has been charged with misogyny. I think the accusations are accurate, although I don't watch his cable TV show. Those fomenting the charge, however, are the political Right, chiefly Fox Network hosts. The rather obvious strategy Fox and the Right are employing is to deflect heat away from Rush Limbaugh, as if to say to the political Left, "See, your guy does it, too. Can't we call it even?"

It's an obvious non sequitur. "Bill Maher is also doing it" is not the correct response to "Is Rush Limbaugh guilty?" Yes, Limbaugh is guilty, and I also think that much of Limbaugh's commentary might reasonably be classified as libel, and possibly hate speech. That said, I also find Maher's article disingenuous. How can he say "Please stop being offended" when the sole purpose of his performance is to offend?

I look forward to smugly telling people, "I wouldn't know too much about marriage inequality. I live in Washington, you know..."

I found this video, and initially thought to myself, "Great! My students will love this. It explains language in a fun bite-sized way." RSA Animate generally does a really good job of taking big ideas and shrinking them into fun little capsules. It's their raison d'etre. However, the problem with RSA Animate (and TED conferences for that matter) is that you (the audience) feel so good about finally grasping some big idea that you may have struggled with in college, that you are less likely to necessarily question the validity of the speaker's argument and more likely to continue patting yourself on the back simply for keeping up with the speaker.

So...before I submit this little video to my new-and-improved website, I need to ask whether I agree with it. And...I am not sure. At one point, he quotes Alan Fiske, who I must admit I know nothing about. After doing some preliminary research, I learn that Fiske argues that there exist four elementary forms of relationships. I always become nervous when sociologists number things. Take the Kubler-Ross Model, for instance (aka "5 Stages of Grief"). How do I know that there are five and not actually six stages of grief? How do I know that there are any stages of grief? I am not comfortable with the ephemeral nature of grief, and I am not sure how one properly lab tests it. I am not certain that Fiske has actually field-tested his ideas or whether he is making an observation and conveniently attributing numbers it. Again, I have not read Fiske, so he may be right, but I am feeling a little skeptical.

The trouble is, however, that much of Pinker's argument relies on Fiske. Pinker in this video (yes, I know it is condensed and we don't get the full picture from it) seems to imply that the relationships that Fiske describe somehow innately exist and that we are all aware of them. We use language, therefore, in a way to negotiate ourselves through these relationships. 

Okay...but I don't think that any of this is innate. I think we have to constantly learn what is inappropriate or appropriate, given the specific circumstances. Secondly, we need to care whether we are behaving appropriately or inappropriately. For instance, why shouldn't someone put a whoopee cushion on the Pope's special chair? Why should he be exempted from dumb practical jokes?

I think I could endorse Pinker were he to simply say that language performs in a certain way, and that when we use language, we are performing a type of ritual that allows us to maintain certain relationships with one another. I get that. What I think doesn't sit comfortably is that Pinker doesn't seem to admit that these behaviors are learned.

I did a bit of investigation, and these hunches seem to be at least partially backed. From what I understand, he relies on evolutionary psychology in order to support his position, and I don't really go in for evolutionary psychology.

It is a shame. Pinker seems to be almost there. I would like to include him in my teaching site, but I have a number of questions that need to be resolved before I can count myself a fan.

Why is it that when there is something nice, someone has to go and ruin it?

I have been tracking the Occupy Seattle feed on my Facebook page for quite some time now, and by and large there are some interesting stories. Much of the time, though, the feed focuses on trivia. There are many events that I am unable to attend because I am teaching, or videos or web links to authors and concepts that I already knew about, etc.

It would appear that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion folk have finally infiltrated the site. Nothing like a bracing glass of anti-Semitism to get you going, yes?

It's called "The American Dream" and it is a cartoon by Tad Lumpkin and Harold Uhl done in a South Park style. The first few minutes were sensible enough. Just some info on predatory lending. Then we get into the heart of the film, where it descends into a meditation on the centuries-old global banking conspiracy begun by the Rothschild family. People watch it, though, because as I note, the first few minutes seem sensible enough. By the time you get to the Jewish conspiracy theory claptrap, the unaware viewer is almost willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt. And, it doesn't hurt that the characters are cheesy South Park facsimiles and that the film does not explicitly blame the Jews directly. 

It took a bit of digging around after searching through the film's credits, but I came upon a site that seems to reiterate much of what I have said already. Ironically, Uhl and Lumpkin are mostly popular among the Libertarian / Survivalist conspiracy crowd. 

I don't like it. There are enough frayed nerves already and it won't take much to push people over the edge, causing them to consider blaming one group or another. Up until now, I hadn't been aware of much, and anyway most of Seattle's Occupy group has been of the left-leaning sort. We have a strong labor tradition up here (we're the site of a Wobblie massacre, after all), so much of the Occupy Seattle spirit seems guided by these historical legacies.

Unsettling, I must say.