This post from Comrade John got me thinking about a few things. Okay, so McCarthy's hot and bothered because President Obama may have bounced a pitch on the plate. Very well. John brings up George W. Bush's successful pitch in 2001, which makes me think of what the reaction among the left would have been if Bush had bounced the ball on the plate? I'm guessing it would have been muted at best--maybe some snickers here and there, at best a subdued Jon Stewart bit. In other words, the reaction would have been bemusement. And the Bush thing would have been funny, because Bush's image was, in large part, based on that sort of he-man bravado--how often were we treated to anecdotes about how Bush worked out all the time, how many videos of him biking around and clearing branches were we subjected to during his term in office? To bounce a baseball would have clashed with that image, and the disconnect would have been a little funny. Obama, on the other hand, has never based his image on a Teddy Rooseveltian ethos of the strenuous life, so had the ball even bounced (I don't even care, so I didn't watch the clip) it wouldn't be absurd. I suppose one could laugh at that out of some sort of hostility that Obama doesn't fit one's standards of manhood, but just because one laughs doesn't make it funny. Indeed, Obama bouncing a baseball would be about as absurd as Bush failing the LSAT exam, which is to say, not much. Obama, however, would look a little foolish if he took, for some reason, the LSATs again and failed them, because much of his image is bound up in a lawyerly identity. So, Obama bombing the LSATs would be a little funny.
I guess it makes me wonder why Andy McCarthy doesn't naturally resort to humor for stuff like this. I mean, it's not funny but neither is most overtly conservative humor. The basic difference between the liberal humor of the likes of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and the conservative "humor" of Rush Limbaugh and American Carol (which I never saw, but I read enough so that I "got it") is that liberal humor has tended to be rooted in a sense of irony, in observing the absurdity of the political order and in conservatives in particular. Most liberals tend to think that conservatives aren't evil, but just wrong and absurd, and pointing out those absurdities has made Stewart a very, very successful media personality. Sure, there are more overtly hostile liberal media personalities--Michael Moore comes to mind--but he has flared out as of late and never had nearly as large a following as Stewart. I don't think it's a coincidence that Colbert and Stewart--who practice a legitimately funny brand of pointing out the ridiculous in the other side's positions--are likely the left's most popular pundits. Their worldview more or less meshes with where liberalism is at this point. The leading "humorists" on the right, however, don't hold a roughly parallel viewpoint--their humor is more like "Can you believe this shit?" while looking down, shaking your head and chuckling. Right-wing humor generally tends not to be funny because it's not rooted in some sort of tension that is dissolved by the humor--indeed, if you take them at face value, most of these conservatives essentially believe that liberals are either intentionally or unintentionally destroying America, and it's strangely comforting that people who believe that, misguided as they are, don't find much humor in it. To laugh at such a thing would be nihilism. It's sort of a strange signpost that their humanity is intact.
I guess, basically, that my point is that there's still a lot of hurt out there, and that it's more on the right than the left at this point. I guess I bought into a lot of Obama's postpartisan rhetoric, and I still think he's a gracious and unassuming leader, but it's now clear to me that the country can't heal until the right manages to find some measure of fundamental respect for the left, which can then become the basis of a dialogue and, perhaps, some sort of settlement. Obama's inclinations won't work until they're met by the other side. And I don't think that's going to come anytime soon. Better to reign in hell, and all that.
On a tangential note, I rather feel sorry for Andy McCarthy. Unless he's faking it, of course. I have a great deal of sympathy for conspiracy theorists, who are always wrong (with the sole exception of Julia Roberts from The Pelican Brief, perhaps) but they fundamentally believe something in their hearts that isn't real, and that they can't shake, despite how much of a fool it makes them seem. Then again, as G.K. Chesterton tells us, such people tend not to lack reason but rather they lack everything but, like judgment and common sense. Faith can be a good thing, but like most virtues there's a roughly equivalent vice, and this is it. I guess I find the whole thing a little depressing, though clearly McCarthy could always choose to rely on factual backup for his various theories. I must remember not to become a "left-wing victimizer".
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Palestinian Question.
Mike Tomasky has an interesting post about Palestine, and he wraps it up with this observation:
But, of course, this is not stuff that can be yakked about on Scarborough. There needs to be a greater effort on the Palestinian side to win more global support through more canny politics and better self-presentation. The Israel/Palestine conflict isn't necessarily insolvable, and there's a general consensus (on both sides, that madman Bibi notwithstanding) that a two-state solution is the logical conclusion. But the Palestinians have severely damaged their cause by a) decades of suicide bombings that seem only recently to have stopped, b) electing Hamas, and c) frequently framing the conflict as being about Israeli perfidy instead of a question of moral rights. What doesn't seem to be understood is that nobody is going to take seriously the complaints of a person--regardless of their correctness--if he's going to strap a bomb to his back. This is all Arafat's legacy, and that dumb old bastard did about as much harm as possible to the Palestinian statehood movement. If Palestine really wants the world to bring pressure to bear on Israel to grant Palestine a state, they need a leader who plays on the world stage, not somebody whose only concern is keeping every single ultraradical in line (like Arafat). Palestine could use someone who could note, say, that Palestinians are the most secular-minded of any Muslim people, or that the sort of Islam practiced in Palestine looks a lot more like Christianity than it does Orthodox Islam. The hospitality of Muslims is, by all accounts, outstanding, and provides a good counterpoint to images of stone-throwing. There's certainly stuff about the Palestinians that can be sold to America, but they need a leader who gets it, and I'm sorry, but it's not Mahmoud Abbas, though he's clearly an improvement on Arafat.
However, they have very little appreciation of the fact that we invented p.r. and radio and television and mass communications, and that prowess in these kinds of venues is what Americans appreciate and respond to above all else.It's difficult to understate how important this is. While suicide bombing is no doubt an economical way of going on the offensive it is hardly an optically appealing one. Couple this in with general Arab antipathies toward Israel, culminating in Ahmadinejad's threats, and you're halfway toward the widespread view that Israel is a tiny, overmatched nation in a sea of hostile, insane religious fanatics. Clearly, this view isn't correct--Israel has historically proven itself quite capable of defending itself against its enemies, and while much of Israel's military activity is deliberately undertaken with a view toward making it seem defensible toward the world, they are not averse to using all sorts of soft power mechanisms to undermine any sort of Palestinian sovereignty. Putting up the security fence is but one of the more harsh examples. There's a reason, to name another example, that Israel "graciously" provides electricity to West Bank Palestinians. Now, I honestly believe that Israel ultimately has little desire to permanently occupy Gaza, but they're hardly the completely innocent nation that the US seems to believe. This isn't to say that they're "bad" or that the Palestinians are "good" but rather that everything is really complicated in this struggle, and the closer you look, the less clear it seems.
But, of course, this is not stuff that can be yakked about on Scarborough. There needs to be a greater effort on the Palestinian side to win more global support through more canny politics and better self-presentation. The Israel/Palestine conflict isn't necessarily insolvable, and there's a general consensus (on both sides, that madman Bibi notwithstanding) that a two-state solution is the logical conclusion. But the Palestinians have severely damaged their cause by a) decades of suicide bombings that seem only recently to have stopped, b) electing Hamas, and c) frequently framing the conflict as being about Israeli perfidy instead of a question of moral rights. What doesn't seem to be understood is that nobody is going to take seriously the complaints of a person--regardless of their correctness--if he's going to strap a bomb to his back. This is all Arafat's legacy, and that dumb old bastard did about as much harm as possible to the Palestinian statehood movement. If Palestine really wants the world to bring pressure to bear on Israel to grant Palestine a state, they need a leader who plays on the world stage, not somebody whose only concern is keeping every single ultraradical in line (like Arafat). Palestine could use someone who could note, say, that Palestinians are the most secular-minded of any Muslim people, or that the sort of Islam practiced in Palestine looks a lot more like Christianity than it does Orthodox Islam. The hospitality of Muslims is, by all accounts, outstanding, and provides a good counterpoint to images of stone-throwing. There's certainly stuff about the Palestinians that can be sold to America, but they need a leader who gets it, and I'm sorry, but it's not Mahmoud Abbas, though he's clearly an improvement on Arafat.
Texas
Evidently, Rick Perry's hamfisted outreach to secessionists and the like has helped him gain a big lead over Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Texas primary race.
I've followed this race a bit, and I must say that I am a little surprised, as I expected Hutchison to win in a walk. For one thing, Perry isn't very popular and seems to have little future in conservative politics, while Hutchison might. Their respective approval ratings, coupled with Perry's weak showing in 2006 (he got 39% in a 4-way race, if I recall correctly), seems like a clear argument for Hutchison's candidacy. Hutchison clearly knows how to appeal to people outside the GOP tent, and could help presumably erode some recent Democratic gains in the statehouse. I find it unlikely that Perry could do any of this--if he wins another term in a noncrazy election, it will be by a small plurality or majority and there will likely be lots of split tickets, and it's hardly inconceivable that the Democrats might retake the state House of Representatives--indeed, they're nearly there already, and they've augmented their power significantly in recent years, to the extent of ousting Republican baron Tom Craddick as speaker this year.
Indeed, for years Democrats have talked about how Texas was trending blue--something borne out by the stats, such as Obama's single-digit loss there last year--and I suspect that giving Perry another nomination will give the Democrats a huge opportunity to retake the seat. The Dems haven't won anything statewide there for fifteen years, but the demographics of the state--perhaps pushed even further if there is any residing anger about Sotomayor's treatment--coupled with the unpopular Perry could make this an opportunity to try to paint Texas a little purpler. I don't know Tom Schieffer's strengths as a candidate, but if he turns out to be halfway competent (and if there isn't another circus like last time), then this thing will be anything other than assured.
Seems to me that the establishment ought to be subtlely backing Hutchison, but it's beginning to look less hopeful for Texas to have a sensible Republican governor in two years.
I've followed this race a bit, and I must say that I am a little surprised, as I expected Hutchison to win in a walk. For one thing, Perry isn't very popular and seems to have little future in conservative politics, while Hutchison might. Their respective approval ratings, coupled with Perry's weak showing in 2006 (he got 39% in a 4-way race, if I recall correctly), seems like a clear argument for Hutchison's candidacy. Hutchison clearly knows how to appeal to people outside the GOP tent, and could help presumably erode some recent Democratic gains in the statehouse. I find it unlikely that Perry could do any of this--if he wins another term in a noncrazy election, it will be by a small plurality or majority and there will likely be lots of split tickets, and it's hardly inconceivable that the Democrats might retake the state House of Representatives--indeed, they're nearly there already, and they've augmented their power significantly in recent years, to the extent of ousting Republican baron Tom Craddick as speaker this year.
Indeed, for years Democrats have talked about how Texas was trending blue--something borne out by the stats, such as Obama's single-digit loss there last year--and I suspect that giving Perry another nomination will give the Democrats a huge opportunity to retake the seat. The Dems haven't won anything statewide there for fifteen years, but the demographics of the state--perhaps pushed even further if there is any residing anger about Sotomayor's treatment--coupled with the unpopular Perry could make this an opportunity to try to paint Texas a little purpler. I don't know Tom Schieffer's strengths as a candidate, but if he turns out to be halfway competent (and if there isn't another circus like last time), then this thing will be anything other than assured.
Seems to me that the establishment ought to be subtlely backing Hutchison, but it's beginning to look less hopeful for Texas to have a sensible Republican governor in two years.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Books to be removed from the canon
Found this list at Sullivan's place. A few quick notes:
- He's absolutely wrong on One Hundred Years of Solitude. The only real complaint he makes is that it's lifeless, which is so bizarre. I actually found the book to be extraordinarily vital--sure, after a while a lot gets lost amid all the births and deaths, but the book introduces some of the fiercest characters in all literature--Jose Arcadio and Ursula Buendia are truly exceptional characters, flawed but likable and resolute progenitors of the doomed town of Macondo. All in all, this is probably the second best Spanish language book ever written (although, admittedly, I haven't read Don Quixote in Spanish, only English).
- I largely agree with his takes on On The Road and Tale of Two Cities. The former is the sort of book that effectively devastates what it is allegedly trying to support, and I generally found it a loathsome and narcissistic book that, sadly, seems to have been a major influence in crafting a generation with many of its flaws. And I picked up Two Cities after reading Great Expectations in a college class for the second time, and I totally fell in love with the latter book, so I figured I'd check out Dickens's other most famous work. I read about sixty boring pages in, put it aside, and eventually lost the book. I think that Cities ought to be regarded as a minor work, and On The Road should just disappear altogether. (I also think that Great Expectations and Sentimental Education by Flaubert would make excellent companion novels about men who largely want similar things for similar reasons, but Flaubert's protagonist is basically too lazy and too romantic to ever amount to anything, while Dickens's pursues his passion with single-minded fervor and abandons everything else to get Estella. My English class, though, being run by Francophobes as it was had us read Jane Eyre as the companion book, which was also good but Flaubert really is teh awesome.)
- I haven't read all these books, but let's just say that The Corrections is moving a bit down on my to-read list (and this just after buying it at a Borders for two bucks).
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Bubba supports gay marriage
I must say, I find continued Democratic reluctance to take this stance baffling. I mean, there's probably a half dozen senators at this point that openly support gay marriage, when upwards of 40% support it nationally, most of whom are left-leaning. And it's clearly not electoral poison. It's not like pro-life politicians never get elected, and that position polls about as well as gay marriage at this point.
So, hopefully the endorsement of the ultimate triangulator will help to make the pro-equality position the default in Democratic politics, at least outside the Nelsons and Landrieus of the party. I'm not exactly the biggest Clinton admirer, though I can't deny that he's an expert at knowing which way the wind blows.
So, hopefully the endorsement of the ultimate triangulator will help to make the pro-equality position the default in Democratic politics, at least outside the Nelsons and Landrieus of the party. I'm not exactly the biggest Clinton admirer, though I can't deny that he's an expert at knowing which way the wind blows.
Eric Cantor/Mike Pence 2012!
I generally like the idea of people other than governors and senators running for president, but I'm not so sure about these two guys: "Congressional Quarterly is reporting that two Republican congressmen, Eric Cantor of Virginia and Mike Pence of Indiana, could be looking to make a presidential run."
When it comes to the Republicans, I'd be happy to see Charlie Crist emerge as a major player, but I think that isn't likely until 2016 at the earliest. I think that the problem at this point is that someone like Cantor or Pence is going to be too conservative for the country in general (though the right would likely be pleased with either), while someone like Romney that could conceivably compete nationally would only be able to prevail by making so many deals with various factions on the right that they would simply be unable to be an independent actor in office. Mike Huckabee strikes me as the only one with an independent following that could allow him some space to maneuver on stuff like the economy and foreign affairs, but his views on these subjects have historically been fairly heterodox, which is why the establishment hates his guts. And I don't think that the GOP has anyone who can take on Obama at this point. The man's a one-in-a-generation political talent, like Reagan or F.D.R.
In any event, Charlie Crist is the most likely next Republican president, in my opinion. He strikes me as someone who can pitch conservatism to people who don't carry around Vietnam-era culture war baggage, and when one considers that the average listening age of a talk radio consumer is something like 67, in eight years there will likely be an opportunity for a different conception of conservatism. But I suppose we'll see. It took about that long after Tony Blair got elected for a lot of the old, intransigent Tories to die off and for Dave Cameron to come to power, and there were some similar demographic bombs at play then as well.
When it comes to the Republicans, I'd be happy to see Charlie Crist emerge as a major player, but I think that isn't likely until 2016 at the earliest. I think that the problem at this point is that someone like Cantor or Pence is going to be too conservative for the country in general (though the right would likely be pleased with either), while someone like Romney that could conceivably compete nationally would only be able to prevail by making so many deals with various factions on the right that they would simply be unable to be an independent actor in office. Mike Huckabee strikes me as the only one with an independent following that could allow him some space to maneuver on stuff like the economy and foreign affairs, but his views on these subjects have historically been fairly heterodox, which is why the establishment hates his guts. And I don't think that the GOP has anyone who can take on Obama at this point. The man's a one-in-a-generation political talent, like Reagan or F.D.R.
In any event, Charlie Crist is the most likely next Republican president, in my opinion. He strikes me as someone who can pitch conservatism to people who don't carry around Vietnam-era culture war baggage, and when one considers that the average listening age of a talk radio consumer is something like 67, in eight years there will likely be an opportunity for a different conception of conservatism. But I suppose we'll see. It took about that long after Tony Blair got elected for a lot of the old, intransigent Tories to die off and for Dave Cameron to come to power, and there were some similar demographic bombs at play then as well.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Ladies and gentlemen, our next president
Via Benen:
I don't really think that the Republicans are dumb or desperate enough to pick Newt for 2012. They have to know he's crazy, but if he gets people worked up, what the hey, right? I actually think he has more of a chance than people think. For one thing, he has a narrative. That narrative isn't really that impressive in context, but Gingrich could say that he beat the Democrats in 1994 and derailed Bill Clinton's agenda, and that he can do the same thing again against Obama. Gingrich certainly played a part in that saga, but it's not exactly unheard of for the opposition party to win seats in midterm elections. And whatever strengths Gingrich had as a tactician have long since gone, leaving someone suited only for the accountability-free zone of cable news.
Plus, there's Newt's recent conversion to Catholicism to consider. We all know about the legendary problems Mitt Romney had in reaching out to the party's evangelical base because of his Mormonism (among other things, admittedly), but I suspect that a Republican Catholic would have nearly as hard a rock to climb. My experience with evangelicals has been that many consider Catholicism a cult, or something very close to it, and that Catholics "don't count" as Christians. I think that Jeb Bush might be able to finesse this by being a member of an already powerful and popular (to Republicans, at least) political family. Perhaps Newt might be able to get in because of his long ties to the GOP, and notwithstanding the recent papism. But maybe not. I think that such a thing could prove absolutely fatal to someone like Bobby Jindal, who has some exposure and some supporters but about whom much simply isn't known. The exorcism story in his past will be a huge obstacle, and I would imagine that someone like Huckabee would make a big deal over the denominational issue. But I simply don't think that you can build an entire infrastructure around a fundamentally exclusive vision of Christianity and expect it to hold together when you start pushing out the walls to let more people inside, even if the other groups fundamentally agree with you on the issues and are natural coalition partners. Maybe they can be in the tent, but they can't lead it. I don't see it happening.
Al Jazeera's Avi Lewis told Gingrich, "In the past, you've called for the bombing of Iran's oil refineries." Gingrich clarified, "I called for sabotage, not bombing.... Fundamental difference." Gingrich explained that the U.S. should use "covert operations" against Iran's refineries because they "have only one refinery that produces gasoline in the entire country.Obviously the sentiment is nutty, but is there really a difference between government bombing and government-encouraged sabotage, really?
I don't really think that the Republicans are dumb or desperate enough to pick Newt for 2012. They have to know he's crazy, but if he gets people worked up, what the hey, right? I actually think he has more of a chance than people think. For one thing, he has a narrative. That narrative isn't really that impressive in context, but Gingrich could say that he beat the Democrats in 1994 and derailed Bill Clinton's agenda, and that he can do the same thing again against Obama. Gingrich certainly played a part in that saga, but it's not exactly unheard of for the opposition party to win seats in midterm elections. And whatever strengths Gingrich had as a tactician have long since gone, leaving someone suited only for the accountability-free zone of cable news.
Plus, there's Newt's recent conversion to Catholicism to consider. We all know about the legendary problems Mitt Romney had in reaching out to the party's evangelical base because of his Mormonism (among other things, admittedly), but I suspect that a Republican Catholic would have nearly as hard a rock to climb. My experience with evangelicals has been that many consider Catholicism a cult, or something very close to it, and that Catholics "don't count" as Christians. I think that Jeb Bush might be able to finesse this by being a member of an already powerful and popular (to Republicans, at least) political family. Perhaps Newt might be able to get in because of his long ties to the GOP, and notwithstanding the recent papism. But maybe not. I think that such a thing could prove absolutely fatal to someone like Bobby Jindal, who has some exposure and some supporters but about whom much simply isn't known. The exorcism story in his past will be a huge obstacle, and I would imagine that someone like Huckabee would make a big deal over the denominational issue. But I simply don't think that you can build an entire infrastructure around a fundamentally exclusive vision of Christianity and expect it to hold together when you start pushing out the walls to let more people inside, even if the other groups fundamentally agree with you on the issues and are natural coalition partners. Maybe they can be in the tent, but they can't lead it. I don't see it happening.
Cause it's stuck in my head
When I heard that there was going to be a show called "Heroes" I guess I just figured that this would be the theme song. It's a no-brainer, really, for the following reasons:
- It's David motherflippin' Bowie
- The titles are the same
- Reason #1 again
And, BTW, Bowie still looks good. He looks an awful lot like Jon Bon Jovi in that video, though. Don't know what that's about.
Wow. Just wow.
This Malkin Nominee must be read to be believed. Just a taste: "Sarah Palin loves God. God loves Sarah Palin. And that is why they hate her...and Him. And why she -- and He -- will be back...[I]t is evil because it is accompanied by crushing debt that will, ultimately, devour large chunks of individual income... Sarah Palin is concerned about unborn children -- another God thing. Fancy that."
Whenever wingnuts start going on this track, it reminds me of Dr. Leo Spaceman from 30 Rock, when he said that science is whatever we want it to be. For these people, God is whoever they want Him to be. Needless to say, the Bible doesn't actually proscribe economic guidelines by which Christian societies ought to be formed (then again, what guidelines do exist suggest that much of the Western economic system is unChristian--i.e. the famous prohibition against usury), not to mention that there's not actually any sort of guidelines with respect to when a pregnancy can be terminated, considering that Christ came in a prescientific age when not nearly as much was known about human development as is now. I'm not saying that these positions are indefensible, or that Christians can't hold them, but I do think that some appellation other than Christian ought to be applied to some of these wingnuts, because they really do worship another god altogether.
For me, my politics are related to my faith in the sense that my worldview follows logically from it. I tend to believe that people are generally good, but that everyone is born with a will to power that will, absent self-awareness and humility, tend to act in ways that glorify the self over others. This is why democracy makes sense, as it distributes power in ways that minimize this corruption of the will (or, at least, diffuse its effects), but I think it goes further than that. Power isn't just held by officials, but also by wealthy individuals, corporations, moneyed interests, etc., and such accumulations of power will be much more likely to lend themselves to corruption. I see this as being sort of the basic form of Christian liberalism, and a straightforward adaptation of Christian insights about human nature into the political sphere, but I'm not under the illusion that it's the only way of applying those insights. It's just one that you don't hear about too often, despite its having a long and storied tradition.
I would say that it's ironic that the religious right is arguably one of the least authentically Christian organizations in the current political sphere, but really it isn't ironic. It's expected. Nobody is incorruptible. Pride makes us think that we are, which is its danger. The whole thing is a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris, really.
Whenever wingnuts start going on this track, it reminds me of Dr. Leo Spaceman from 30 Rock, when he said that science is whatever we want it to be. For these people, God is whoever they want Him to be. Needless to say, the Bible doesn't actually proscribe economic guidelines by which Christian societies ought to be formed (then again, what guidelines do exist suggest that much of the Western economic system is unChristian--i.e. the famous prohibition against usury), not to mention that there's not actually any sort of guidelines with respect to when a pregnancy can be terminated, considering that Christ came in a prescientific age when not nearly as much was known about human development as is now. I'm not saying that these positions are indefensible, or that Christians can't hold them, but I do think that some appellation other than Christian ought to be applied to some of these wingnuts, because they really do worship another god altogether.
For me, my politics are related to my faith in the sense that my worldview follows logically from it. I tend to believe that people are generally good, but that everyone is born with a will to power that will, absent self-awareness and humility, tend to act in ways that glorify the self over others. This is why democracy makes sense, as it distributes power in ways that minimize this corruption of the will (or, at least, diffuse its effects), but I think it goes further than that. Power isn't just held by officials, but also by wealthy individuals, corporations, moneyed interests, etc., and such accumulations of power will be much more likely to lend themselves to corruption. I see this as being sort of the basic form of Christian liberalism, and a straightforward adaptation of Christian insights about human nature into the political sphere, but I'm not under the illusion that it's the only way of applying those insights. It's just one that you don't hear about too often, despite its having a long and storied tradition.
I would say that it's ironic that the religious right is arguably one of the least authentically Christian organizations in the current political sphere, but really it isn't ironic. It's expected. Nobody is incorruptible. Pride makes us think that we are, which is its danger. The whole thing is a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris, really.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Prager bait
Michelle Cottle notes the increasing popularity of men shaving parts other than their faces, and includes this quote:
Prager aside, I don't see this as a piece with the "feminization" of American Men--whatever that means--so much as it's another triumph of mass media in selling images of sexuality to young people. Obviously porn has a lot to do with it. I'm not an anti-porn crusader, and I don't necessarily think it's sinful, but it can pretty clearly have negative effects on developing minds, in the sense of teaching people all sorts of bad lessons with respect to sex (the negative effects to people who can put it in context are probably minimal). I don't think that shaving more parts is necessarily something to worry about (my response has always been: over my dead body, ahem) but one wonders about the other consequences of this sort of fixation. For some decades now, sex has joined consumption as one of the presumptive cures to America's spiritual malaise, and, us being Americans, we tend to think that more is better. I guess it makes sense under that prism, and I'm honestly not too exercised over the pervasiveness of sex in mainstream culture (better than violence, I'd say), I guess because I find it so amusing.
But one can only acknowledge Cottle's irony. I guess it's not surprising: vanity isn't a gendered condition, and it's beginning to look like gendered forms of vanity are rapidly converging. Something similar has happened with attitudes about sex, in my experience, though perhaps not so fully in that department.
"More than a decade ago, I wrote a piece for The Washignton [sic] Monthly observing--OK, gloating really--that lad mags like Men's Health were on track to make men as neurotic, insecure, and appearance-obsessed as women. But even I am occasionally surprised by how far guys seem to have been lured down the path toward fashion- and beauty-slavery. "
Prager aside, I don't see this as a piece with the "feminization" of American Men--whatever that means--so much as it's another triumph of mass media in selling images of sexuality to young people. Obviously porn has a lot to do with it. I'm not an anti-porn crusader, and I don't necessarily think it's sinful, but it can pretty clearly have negative effects on developing minds, in the sense of teaching people all sorts of bad lessons with respect to sex (the negative effects to people who can put it in context are probably minimal). I don't think that shaving more parts is necessarily something to worry about (my response has always been: over my dead body, ahem) but one wonders about the other consequences of this sort of fixation. For some decades now, sex has joined consumption as one of the presumptive cures to America's spiritual malaise, and, us being Americans, we tend to think that more is better. I guess it makes sense under that prism, and I'm honestly not too exercised over the pervasiveness of sex in mainstream culture (better than violence, I'd say), I guess because I find it so amusing.
But one can only acknowledge Cottle's irony. I guess it's not surprising: vanity isn't a gendered condition, and it's beginning to look like gendered forms of vanity are rapidly converging. Something similar has happened with attitudes about sex, in my experience, though perhaps not so fully in that department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)