The payment gap in gender

Before I start I would like to thank David Santos, never realized there were people out there who liked what I was saying, and I would like to thank everybody else too who has commented in my blog and gave their own two cents', three cents', worth. I would like to refer to a recent article that I was reading, in fact about several, one is this http://entertainment.sg.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1832836 and the other one is this http://amananta.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/the-latest-false-woman-dividing-dichotomy/ , which I thought was a very well-written commentary. I never realized or knew that women were still lagging on payment behind men even up to the entertainment industry, and this I thought, was offensive. It meant that the strides of womanhood was still limited, and ofcourse the value of women's work is globally considered as being second to that of men's work. But this as the lady of 'Screaming the Void' adds, is a result of the dichotomy between women themselves and I cannot help but agree with her. This is definitely true wherever the sphere of existence rules us, it has been with us since the dawn of time and that was what I found so deeply disturbing. But on a tackling note of historians and historiography we could apply the deconstruction of history itself, the most, history was recorded during the Renaissance, which in more ways than one, could have been a selective process resulting from Christianity and their commitment to putting males ahead. History is selective it pulls together what it wants to depict and nothing could be more true than the history that we live with up until today. The world is viewed through the eyes of men and not women, the women have remained silent and they have remained locked behind doors unable to commit themselves to a better situation. Feminism has its points when it claims that women are being divided into different spheres in order for us to be divided and not united. There are several implications of class that constitute themselves within the 'act' of gender. When I say 'act' I mean to say that gender itself has become an act and not merely a term we use as a description. No longer is gender deconstructed but rather, gender is constructed continously and repeatedly through the way we view the world from our social interactions and (an easy scapegoat) the media. Women are being continously bombarded and disfigured to fit the preconceptions of what womenhood should be through male eyes.

Stiglitz and Matisyahu

A very weird converging point, one a nobel prize winning economist and the other an interfaith reggae singer, I assume though that Stiglitz is a Jew through his name I could be wrong, and if that was true then both of them have some common ground. Anyway, back to my point, I was reading Stiglitz's 'Making Globalization Work', the problem is clear, and the IMF is a jerkwad, of course tra lala, Washington Consensus bla3, but the thing is this, why is it necessary to push developing countries into a course that have marked and shaped industrialized societies? Local businesses and local handmade products are a beacon for trading with the outside world but they have no value amongst the Louis Vuitton and Prada bags. Both are handmade, what is the difference then? Both too could produce quality, but how is it one could cost 50$ (which less than a third would probably reach the maker, the raw material supplier and most pocketed by the seller) and the other, $5000? We live in a world of supply and demand, but it is missing a lot of things in between, the idea of man needing all of these things, these useless useless things that surround us daily in our lives. Consumerism is not deep down in your heart, its not as many economic anthropologists have argued, necessity (read Sahlins' classic), they are made up of the most useless, asinine things that man could think of, and yet living in this world I myself cannot help that they have been so ingrained to me that I find them indispensable (like the fact that I go out to lunch every single day and dinner too). Man is made up of different components of culture society, they are definitely shaped by it and there is no doubt of it, it grounds deep down to the way we see biology and science itself. A friend of mine was quite surprised that doing anthropology I understood some biological 'stuff' that was supposed to be her domain, she was surprised to know that the colour of water was subjective for example, through the eyes of culture that sees it and not through the actuality in itself. Like Philosophy, it seems that we return to the beginning of the question that we have posed, and not out of it.

On another note I would like to commend Matisyahu for his efforts on religion. At some point of my life, I thought that it could be the answer for all the social ills that were going around me, but now, disoriented and broken hearted from the ravages of what 'religion' and humanity bring, I want to break free of it. Other than that, Matisyahu, you rock ;)

Kinship and Love

At times, sociologists ignore the root of the matter, I know its all about looking at the big picture, but sometimes, these kinds of topics are fit for psychologists to interpret. For a long time now, what humanity does is never a cause for concern, people just seemed to look at things as if they are there and take it for granted, they never realize how important it is and how much it could shape the whole of society together. There have been two proponents that argued how society was shaped, the first is of course Radcliffe-Browne with his structuralist functionalism, everything happens because they're meant to be, and the second which at times I wonder if he's right, by Malinowski's psychological functionalism. Marxists think that the world is controlled by money and the economy, both are actually arguing about the same thing, and we could go back to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The basic needs of man will inturn lead to higher things, and when man becomes base, they take into action their basic desires.

How about Love?
:)

Sometimes people say that their lust is love, but its not true, I dont know what the flying fuck I'm talking about

This one's an old one, I should say it too - Haruki Murakami's After Dark

Not as good as his other works, there I said it.

I just remembered what I wanted to say - review of Orhan Pamuk's My name is Red

While my labours are not entirely fruitless I managed to get around to finishing this book, despite its label, Nobel Prize Winner, you could have lied to me! Okay, you want my honest opinion? This book, sucks, not entirely but somewhat about half the book is bad while the other half is not that bad. Probably, the cause is the LOST in Translation part, it was tedious and long with winding stories that none other reminded me of the translation of the One Thousand and One Nights, stories within stories, the problem was...it did not fascinate me. It had a tendency to repeat itself without any magic accompanying it. Answer me this, why is it that Pramoedya Ananta Toer is a Nobel Prize laureate but this guy wins the whole thing? Let me describe and ruin it for you, the image that was depicted of women for example, in the case of Shekure is too...fantastic. Although the erotica was good but I could say better of Haruki Murakami's works (more after this I'm going to review one of them as well). I disliked Shekure, for every reason in the book that Mary Daly and Shulamith Firestone could think of. For one thing, she's a dreamer, okay that doesn't sound so bad, no, she's a dreamer who wants to be gilded like a princess because of her looks. That is a character I find repulsive. If Pamuk could crack a pretty woman's head and show me what's in it, none of them bear any of the sensitivities that Pamuk displays, they are imaginary depictions of what women are. This is one of the more disconcerting things that I find about the Nobel Prize, they portray what the masses think and what it ought to be. The only people I like amongst that list is Pearl S. Buck, Wole Soyinka and Toni Morisson. The year they decided to nominate Orhan Pamuk was a bad year I think! Sure, at least he tries to connect the West and the East, but the writing...is fit for I don't know, a book called Tokaido that I read a few years back. It wasn't engaging, it didn't rack my soul like Ben Okri, it didn't leave me dazzled like Naguib Mahfouz and it didn't make me laugh like V.S. Naipaul. The characters were shallow, I cannot see inside them, why is that? They show me themselves but not inside their hearts, is that what it's supposed to be, another style of writing? I suppose the only person who could write whodunit novels is and always will be Agatha Christie, any takers on that one? I disliked Black, the only character I found engaging was oddly enough Shekure's dead father, Enishte Effendi. Spare me the book, just chuck it in the bin.

I've got two questions

I've got two simple questions, and shit I forgot about what the fuck I was gonna say.

Abortion/Love/Disabilities

I have three children and all three of these kids, for myself, I don't care. I've always loved children and I always will but when I had my first child I was eighteen, I thought and I thought. I was already engaged, I finished my diploma, I was somewhat responsible. But was my parents ready for a child? I asked and I wondered, should I get an abortion? It seemed easy back then, you have never met the person that you were going to carry, they were only seeds of flesh. But I didn't go through with it, then after my second child, six months after Ezra I was pregnant again. I thought, what the hell? I can't go through with this again, what will people say? And, is it safe? After being so close to another caesarean? So I asked around, Edward too was being considered for the drop. But it was okay, they were all extremely healthy children, they inherited some of my allergies, actually both my husband and I, thankfully very mild rashes and fever asthma. Considering I smoked when I was pregnant too, they were all above three kilograms with regular sized brains, perfect lungs perfect heart, hey I don't know how I did it but I did it! It happens in my family, people do smoke when they're pregnant, not too much just once in awhile. But we're all healthy and happy, and then I thouht some people who try so hard with their pregnancies and they have to deal with more, so I feel sorry. Now this is where I'm going to hit the right note, if a woman, has a higher chance of having a child with a disability, will she abort it? Even for small things like a cleft palate or a webbed foot? Or something more difficult like Down's syndrome? I've read about Down's syndrome, there are many who become successful, many who can live alone, have a job, get married and have kids. Focus, and learn (honestly, there are people on this earth with no disability whatsoever but they are far more dependent and sorry to say idiotic than a person with down's syndrome or autism). So what's the problem? Why are many more women aborting imperfections? Sometimes, a human being's worth on this earth is a lot more than you think, who knows they might save someone's life one day, they might be useful to a community. They might not, but you can take the same gamble on a normal kid who might end up as a serial killer/rapist/pedophile/politician. I'm not sure about abortions, for myself it's a case by case thing. it's not something for everyone, so I'm not advocating nor am I rejecting it. There are cases of incest rape, and maybe the person just doesn't want their child to be hurt. There are limits and unfortunately limits differ from person to person. But if you're pregnant and your child might have a disability, aren't the odds when you add up teenagehood, tween, college drunkfest or whatever is nasty, just the same?

What's wrong with people living on trees in Brunei?

I know the allegation, people think Borneans and Bruneians are a bunch of savages living on trees, meaning that we aren't even up on the evolutionary scale, not even Homo Sapien, unlike them Homo Sapien Sapien, not even close to Homo Habilis. Cos, we live on trees. But doing a lot of readings on Borneo, I realized that all this time Bruneians have a problem in the way they treat other races except themselves. Of course the given will always be true, those in power, those with wealth that can be translated to power, will always necessarily be able to wield enough to maintain that their positions will be higher than that of others. But the question is this, what's wrong with Borneans and Bruneians living on trees? I know they're a group on facebook, defying that Bruneians don't live on trees, but what is so wrong with that? What is so wrong being different? Why is everyone running after prestige so badly that they need to have a fricking mansion/flatscreen tv/study in UK/US/Oz/drive an expensive car. Last night I was talking to this lady I was hennaing and she was from Singapore, she said she felt a little bit relaxed because people were not so driven by materialistic culture, but...really? Bruneians are a bit materialistic, not to the extent of Singaporeans but we're getting there. Not just that they're prestige crazy. Everything is just as fake everywhere around the world. The views of Borneans and Bruneians living on trees only reflect the perspective of Orientalism. Where's the Occidentalism? As one white guy once pointed out to me (albeit he's a fricking idiot), it's been 50 years since independence, why do they all sound like they want to kiss the Western perspective?

Sex and disability

I just realized something very2 strong. All this time I only thought about myself being oveweight and all and having challenges concerning sexuality. Well there I'm completely wrong and something is fucking wrong with the world we live in today. Have we ever realized that sex and body types should not be one-sided? Why is there only one representation of sexuality minus the rest? Sex is white, barbie doll and massive cocked Ken, it's not Asian male, or Black women, sure these two do exist but they are not the central pornographic mainstream. And not just that, where is the disabled sex? Why are there no sex involving people on a wheelchair? People who are blind? Why does tv show only sex and love of two 'normal' (trust me everyone is so not normal) man and woman? And the gay men and women, fucking hell, they all look good, where is the reality in that? Not all gay men are good looking and not all gay women are good looking and good looking is questionable. I think I have come to feel quite surprised at the way society embodies humanity, they are either the tools of capitalism or the mass media but those are just simple explanations that skim the true surface. Humanity makes humanity, society perpetuates society, one girl once told me its not that she doesnt want to date this guy who she thinks was unattractive, it was because she wanted to wake up next to someone who wouldnt freak her out, well you cant teach an old dog new tricks, that's true, and therefore she can leave it at that, but what about teaching our next generation to be more realistic and open and humane about their sexuality? How about teaching people the fact that one way or another a so called 'good looking guy' can wake up next to you and scare the shit out of you, they can be disabled, they can be disfigured badly, is that the worth of your love? Then it must be shallow.

Girls Beware!

Interesting sexist and prejudiced videos from America in the 50s.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fAKo-i4jpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGqT_Z50w5c&feature=related