#something something ironically it's actually revealing of how gender is a social construct

[carriesthewind]

Once again in people telling on themselves: the transphobic bigots screaming about "what is a woman" have proven what they really think the answer is. People who those with power and authority deem to be pretty enough and white enough.

[siriusist]

Hi! I’ve been following you for a lil lil bit, but already you seem super smart and knowledgeable so.. what are some books or other pieces of writing you think everyone should read? Have a lovely day!

B’aww, thank you! <3 You too nonnie! <3

Just off the top of my head at three o’clock in the morning, and the qualification that you provided that its something that ‘everyone should read,’ I’m going to go for more books that I found changed me fundamentally, as a person, after reading them. That may be a self-help book; that might be a societal critique, that might be a work of classic literature. I tried to give a bit of everything. <3

 I’ll put a little copy-and-paste synopsis here for you for each book, and will elaborate if necessary in brackets. 

BEHOLD: LAUREN’S LIST OF LITERARY RECOMMENDATIONS:

From My (Non-Law) Bookcase (But still are about political issues):

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly: 

‘As women, we’ve been urged for so long to bottle up our anger, letting it corrode our bodies and minds in ways we don’t even realize. Yet there are so, so many legitimate reasons for us to feel angry, ranging from blatant, horrifying acts of misogyny to the subtle drip, drip drip of daily sexism that reinforces the absurdly damaging gender norms of our society. In Rage Becomes Her, Soraya Chemaly argues that our anger is not only justified, it is also an active part of the solution. We are so often encouraged to resist our rage or punished for justifiably expressing it, yet how many remarkable achievements would never have gotten off the ground without the kernel of anger that fueled them? Approached with conscious intention, anger is a vital instrument, a radar for injustice and a catalyst for change. On the flip side, the societal and cultural belittlement of our anger is a cunning way of limiting and controlling our power—one we can no longer abide.’

Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education by Jay T. Dolmage:

‘Academic Ableism brings together disability studies and institutional critique to recognize the ways that disability is composed in and by higher education, and rewrites the spaces, times, and economies of disability in higher education to place disability front and center. For too long, argues Jay Timothy Dolmage, disability has been constructed as the antithesis of higher education, often positioned as a distraction, a drain, a problem to be solved. The ethic of higher education encourages students and teachers alike to accentuate ability, valorize perfection, and stigmatize anything that hints at intellectual, mental, or physical weakness, even as we gesture toward the value of diversity and innovation. Examining everything from campus accommodation processes, to architecture, to popular films about college life, Dolmage argues that disability is central to higher education, and that building more inclusive schools allows better education for all.’

(This book strays into more academic categories, but it’s still really great that this sort of book is being written. I personally recognise its value as someone with mental health struggles and who has had to fight ironically in the legal sphere for myself in terms of finding support within my own career moving forward as a lawyer/legal academic. I think the fact that the narrative that disabilities are seen as the antithesis of secondary education despite claims of diversity is something that all university students need to guard themselves against, or at least educate themselves on, in order to work against some systems that even though they espouse equality, might not have their best interests at heart. 

I’ve ironically found this especially terrible in law, where my first term of law school I was told ‘girls like you don’t go to law school,’ followed by constant questioning by the community at large after graduate that any hint of mental weakness equates to being unfit to practice law. This is despite the majority of lawyers having mental health problems, if not full blown addictions. It’s honestly why I’m pivoting back to academia (law prof), or moving to practice for the government (which enforces union restrictions on how long a lawyer can actually work, where firms just actually work them to death without union protections ironically; ugh. My whole point is, I’m not ashamed of having mental health problems in a field largely categorised by achievements in secondary education. I feel no reason to hide it, even though people tell me to. If someone is ashamed of me over something I had no control over developing, then I probably don’t want to be involved with them, do I? (A good method I recommend; it may cut off some superficial ‘friends’/’opportunities,’ but it leads to those who truly understand what a mental health disability may entail, and how strong you are for overcoming it).

White Fragility: Why It’s so Hard to for White People to Talk about Racism by Robin DiAngelo:

The New York Times best-selling book exploring the counterproductive reactions white people have when their assumptions about race are challenged, and how these reactions maintain racial inequality.

In this “vital, necessary, and beautiful book” (Michael Eric Dyson), antiracist educator Robin DiAngelo deftly illuminates the phenomenon of white fragility and “allows us to understand racism as a practice not restricted to ‘bad people’ (Claudia Rankine). Referring to the defensive moves that white people make when challenged racially, white fragility is characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and by behaviors including argumentation and silence. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any meaningful cross-racial dialogue. In this in-depth exploration, DiAngelo examines how white fragility develops, how it protects racial inequality, and what we can do to engage more constructively.

Two Mental Health-Related Books:

Do Nothing: How to Break Away from Overworking, Overdoing, and Underliving by Celeste Headlee:

‘We work feverishly to make ourselves happy. So why are we so miserable?

Despite our constant search for new ways to optimize our bodies and minds for peak performance, human beings are working more instead of less, living harder not smarter, and becoming more lonely and anxious. We strive for the absolute best in every aspect of our lives, ignoring what we do well naturally and reaching for a bar that keeps rising higher and higher. Why do we measure our time in terms of efficiency instead of meaning? Why can’t we just take a break?

In Do Nothing, award-winning journalist Celeste Headlee illuminates a new path ahead, seeking to institute a global shift in our thinking so we can stop sabotaging our well-being, put work aside, and start living instead of doing. As it turns out, we’re searching for external solutions to an internal problem. We won’t find what we’re searching for in punishing diets, productivity apps, or the latest self-improvement schemes. Yet all is not lost - we just need to learn how to take time for ourselves, without agenda or profit, and redefine what is truly worthwhile.

Pulling together threads from history, neuroscience, social science, and even paleontology, Headlee examines long-held assumptions about time use, idleness, hard work, and even our ultimate goals. Her research reveals that the habits we cling to are doing us harm; they developed recently in human history, which means they are habits that can, and must, be broken. It’s time to reverse the trend that’s making us all sadder, sicker, and less productive, and return to a way of life that allows us to thrive.’

(I just read this book lately and I love it; it’s really follows the history of how we’ve come to this point where we can’t shut off our brains, and we see ourselves in this really puritanical, commercialist manner: How we define ourselves by how much we produce, and if we fall short of this goal by being (ironically) human, we berate ourselves for it. This really has let me shift my mentality towards a much healthier, less ‘workaholic’ mode in my COVID downtime, and really helped me move towards a healthier lifestyle in the jobs I’m searching for now that I’ve left school. Recommended for anyone taking the big leap into the full time work world).

Chained to the Desk by Bryan Robinson:

‘Americans love a hard worker. The worker who toils eighteen-hour days and eats meals on the run between appointments is usually viewed with a combination of respect and awe. But for many, this lifestyle leads to family problems, a decline in work productivity, and ultimately to physical and mental collapse. Intended for anyone touched by what Robinson calls “the best-dressed problem of the twenty-first century,” Chained to the Desk provides an inside look at workaholism’s impact on those who live and work with work addicts—partners, spouses, children, and colleagues—as well as the appropriate techniques for clinicians who treat them. Originally published in 1998, this groundbreaking book from best-selling author and widely respected family therapist Bryan E. Robinson was the first comprehensive portrait of the workaholic. In this new and fully updated third edition, Robinson draws on hundreds of case reports from his own original research and years of clinical practice. The agonies of workaholism have grown all the more challenging in a world where the computer, cell phone, and iPhone allow twenty-four-hour access to the office, even on weekends and from vacation spots. Adult children of workaholics describe their childhood pain and the lifelong legacies they still carry, and the spouses or partners of workaholics reveal the isolation and loneliness of their vacant relationships. Employers and business colleagues discuss the cost to the company when workaholism dominates the workplace. Chained to the Desk both counsels and consoles. It provides a step-by-step guide to help readers spot workaholism, understand it, and recover.’

(I also just read this one, and it’s an older book edited to a third edition, and it shows. However, it also does the important work of demonstrating how workaholics should be treated in the same category as anyone else who gets any sort of ‘high’ from something, like drugs or alcoholism. It opens with the quote (and I’m paraphrasing here), “Workaholicism is the best dressed addiction.” It’s the one we’re rewarded for constantly, not matter what mental toll it takes on us. While I’m not exactly ready to sign up for a twelve-step plan (and some of the chapters are specifically for spouses and children), it still dishes out some really good advice about feeding other areas of our lives and how to not simply focus on work.)

From My Undergraduate Degree (Classics and Double Minor in English and German Literature, with a little World Literature thrown in for good measure):

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe: 

THINGS FALL APART tells two overlapping, intertwining stories, both of which center around Okonkwo, a “strong man” of an Ibo village in Nigeria. The first of these stories traces Okonkwo's fall from grace with the tribal world in which he lives, and in its classical purity of line and economical beauty it provides us with a powerful fable about the immemorial conflict between the individual and society. The second story, which is as modern as the first is ancient, and which elevates the book to a tragic plane, concerns the clash of cultures and the destruction of Okonkwo's world through the arrival of aggressive, proselytizing European missionaries. These twin dramas are perfectly harmonized, and they are modulated by an awareness capable of encompassing at once the life of nature, human history, and the mysterious compulsions of the soul. THINGS FALL APART is the most illuminating and permanent monument we have to the modern African experience as seen from within.

(This is a classic of African Literature, and what I wrote my world literature paper on in first year. It really is a story about the affect of a fall of one culture, where Okonkwo is the prime example of what a ‘man’ may be in this society, to how this society (and African societies as a whole) are affected by European colonialism. How one man can be seen as a paradigm of perfection at one point in time, and the scourge of the earth at another, when he stubbornly holds to his ideals, no matter how flawed they may be. It’s a book I remember reading the ending of, and it’s a theme for all three of these books, and just looking down and literally letting out an, “Ooooooooh~~~~” xD That’s really my ‘tell’ of a good book. I haven’t reread it since then, but it’s always stuck with me). 

Animal Farm by George Orwell:

‘Perhaps one of the most influential allegories of the 20th century, George Orwell's Animal Farm has made its way into countless schoolrooms and libraries, and has been the inspiration of several films. Written in 1945, before Orwell's conceptually similar 1984, Animal Farm's world consists of anthropomorphized farm animals as they attempt to create an ideal society--it becomes dystopian as the flaws of the ideology seep out. Like 1984, Orwell meant for Animal Farm to represent a Communist state, and to depict its downfalls. With a message that is not soon to be forgotten, Animal Farm reminds us that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."’

(It’s stereotypical and you’ve probably read it, but I still love this book to pieces and literally have an Animal Farm pin on my bag xD If you haven’t read it, read it: It also has the OhhhOOohhh~ effect xD)

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury:

‘Ray Bradbury's internationally acclaimed novel Fahrenheit 451 is a masterwork of 20th-century literature set in a bleak, dystopian future.

Guy Montag is a fireman. In his world, where television rules and literature is on the brink of extinction, firemen start fires rather than put them out. His job is to destroy the most illegal of commodities, the printed book, along with the houses in which they are hidden. Montag never questions the destruction and ruin his actions produce, returning each day to his bland life and wife, Mildred, who spends all day with her television "family". But then he meets an eccentric young neighbor, Clarisse, who introduces him to a past where people didn’t live in fear and to a present where one sees the world through the ideas in books instead of the mindless chatter of television. When Mildred attempts suicide and Clarisse suddenly disappears, Montag begins to question everything he has ever known. He starts hiding books in his home, and when his pilfering is discovered, the fireman has to run for his life.’

(What do I have to say by this point? Another Ooooh~ effect book xD)

[heka-write]

So there are a lot of videos with this title. And this topic has been discussed since I was in high school (2012); so basically a long time. The main point these videos seem to be making is that:

1) Making a female character fight or do other traditionally “masculine” things is not automatically going to make them a good character.

2) Many times fans dislike more feminine female characters for being feminine, and that being feminine doesn’t mean a female character can’t be well-written. What determines a strong female character is her development, flaws, story arc, etc etc.

Obviously, I agree with both these points. Many of my favorite female characters do take on more support roles rather than fighting roles (Anastasia from OUATIW, Mai from Yugioh: Duel Monsters, the Pretty Little Liars cast from the books, Elena from TVD S1 + S2 (when she took the damsel in distress role more than in later seasons. Ironically enough I didn’t like her in later seasons at all.))  I have seen many examples of authors trying to make up for their female character’s lack of development by giving them power ups (Sakura from Naruto is the main example. She was nothing but pairing fodder for the whole series and the author tried to make up for it at the very end by giving her a surprising power up out of nowhere ). So what exactly is my problem with the abundance of these videos?

Let’s look at some of these “masculine” females:

All of these girls/women…are super feminine. All of them have long hair, tightly fitted suits, Hollywood makeup, and sometimes even high heels. From what I know, most of them are also straight.

Yes, despite what a LOT of people are saying, most of these protagonists are super “feminine” but just have the few characteristics of “masculinity” such as fighting. There’s also the issue of some of them being emotionally stoic rather than complex, but somehow that makes them “masculine”. It doesn’t, it just means they are badly written with a few traditionally masculine traits like fighting. The best written male characters are those who are emotionally complex as well; it doesn’t have anything to do with “femininity”.

Honestly, if the YA community views these women as “masculine”, how would they respond to a butch lesbian?

Or how they would respond to women who ACTUALLY don’t look traditionally “feminine” :

What I’m basically saying is this: No, there is not an abundance of “masculine” female characters, or those who defy gender norms as I’d rather like to say. If anything, we need more female characters who genuinely do defy gender norms outside of just fighting and are also well written.

If you’ve noticed, I’ve been putting “feminine” and “masculine” in quotes this whole time, and I’ll explain why. 

A lot of people have said something along the lines of this (paraphrased) quote:

“These female characters who fight are basically showing that women have to act like men to be empowered”

No, women who defy gender norms are not “acting like men”. Women who fight, don’t wear makeup, play video games, refuse to have children, don’t like to cook, etc are acting like women who don’t follow traditional gender roles. They are not acting “like men” because men do not own any of these traits. Masculinity and femininity are just social constructions of gender.  Aka gender roles. When you say that women who don’t adhere to gender roles are “acting like men” you are perpetuating gender roles and being sexist. Most of the people I have seen in these videos or articles call themselves feminists…but feminism is completely opposed to enforcing these types of gender roles.

Obviously there is a lot of grey area in certain aspects of gender. Some neuroscientists claim there is no “female brain”, other specialists say there are some differences, but telling women that we need to “act more feminine” or ladylike is probably the epitome of archaic misogyny. It also leads way to telling women who are tomboys or GNC that they have “internalized misogyny” for not conforming. You may as well tell me to get back in the kitchen.

Yes, there are good traits that are demonized for being traditionally feminine. Childcare and cooking are often times taken for granted despite the amount of skill they require. Nonviolence isn’t as popular in mainstream media because violence is more flashy. These are traits we should be promoting more of, for both sexes.

But let’s not forget when gender roles were created; they were created in societies where women were men’s property as a guidance for telling women how to behave and as a way to tell men how to keep women in line. There needs to be some criticism and separation from those negative aspects of femininity. We need less women fighting in high heels, we need less nerdy girls getting makeovers. We need more women in relationships with other women. We need to emphasize the importance for women to learn self-defense, instead of letting them think these situations will never happen to them.

Criticizing femininity is not the same thing as hating on women who are feminine, because femininity is a role put upon women, not womanhood in itself. 

As a last note; the definition of femininity differs from culture to culture. In Middle Eastern/South Asian culture (where I am from) women aren’t encouraged to wear makeup or revealing clothes, but rather cover from head to toe. Cats aren’t considered “female” pets, video games aren’t considered boy games etc. How can femininity be innate if it’s different across the world? Which is the innate one?

All I’m saying is that the concept of femininity can and should be criticized, and that we need more genuinely gender nonconforming females who are well written. We can do that without bashing feminine women or characters, and we can do that while creating complex female characters.

@melinapendulum have been following you forever would love to know your thoughts!

[thebachelordiaries]

“Sage Advice And Sage Vaginas:” The Bachelorette Premiere Recap

We are officially back! It feels good to be back. I’ve missed being excited on Mondays. I’ve missed my little Twitter family. I’ve missed the memes and the endless sh*t talking. But most of all, I’ve missed seeing the man who I consider my second father: Chris Harrison.

Now let’s just jump right into it. 

The episode begins with Becca crying while looking at pictures of her and Arie. I don’t know how producers got her to cry, but I’m pretty sure Becca has now realized just how lucky she is to have been dumped by Arie. 

She’s done crying. Now it’s time for Becca to pick her head up and live out her new destiny as The Bachelorette.

As the wise artist Ariana Grande one said.

Ain't got no tears left to cry So I'm pickin' it up, pickin' it up I'm lovin', I'm livin', I'm pickin' it up

She’s now The Bachelorette, and women ledes always have the most success with choosing the right partner. As JoJo said later on in the episode, 

“One hundred percent, women are more intuitive and know what they want.” 

Can I get a hell yeah for the superior gender?

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, can psychologists do a case study on a woman’s intuition? And if it’s already been done, please slide the scholarly article into my DMs. Thank you in advance.

Look at this Minnesotean snow princess. I am shook.

Can you imagine having such a compelling storyline from being dumped by your fiance for someone else that producers just skim over the fact that your father died of a brain tumor and your mother has battled cancer? This girl has been through too much. If she doesn’t find happiness, all of Bachelor Nation will revolt. And I will be leading the way.

Becca wants a man who is as loyal and loving as her dad was to her mom. She deserves this and nothing less. Can we find this woman a man? Let’s do the damn thing.

(That is the first and last time I will ever say that phrase.)

Becca also has a sister and a corgi nephew, who made a very subtle appearance in the premiere episode. However, it must not go unnoticed.

Follow this little loaf of bread on Instagram: max_in_madison

Becca is then magically transported from Minnesota to LA, where she is seen driving a convertible along the coast of the Pacific. 

At the Bachelor Mansion, she gets some sage advice from the last three Bachelorettes: Rachel, JoJo and Kaitlyn. 

Rachel lit up some sage to get rid of the “bad juju” in the mansion.

"I’m going to sage your pu**y.” -Rachel

This was the first time the people giving advice were actually still in Bachelor-related relationships. It’s like The Bachelorette is becoming more successful with time. I approve. 

What I didn’t approve of was that Kaitlyn got no airtime. 

Hello, 911? I’d like to report that Kaitlyn Bristowe was ROBBED of airtime during The Bachelorette premiere. 

Video Intros

Every season ABC selectively chooses which men we should get to know in their video package intros. We met seven men. That seems like a lot, but here’s what I learned.

Clay— He’s not a regular jock. He’s a sensitive jock.

Garrett—He did a Chris Farley impression without explicitly stating he was doing one, which probably confused 95 percent of all viewers, including myself. Garrett likes doing outdoors stuff. The rest of his personality is hot air. This is everything you could ever want or need to know about Garrett.

Jordan— He has a unique (re: dumb) way of describing things, but I’m grateful for him because he’s going to be entertaining us for about 60 percent of the season in his ITMs. 

Lincoln— I take back whatever I said about him being attractive for having an accent. Listening to his voice has made me iron deficient. Brb, going to go chew on some ice now.

Joe— Joe owns a grocery store, a million-watt smile and a heart of gold. I’m in love.

Jean Blanc— He low-key shaded Trump by saying Haiti is not a “sh*t h*le.” He also has an obsession with smelling things and spending lots of money on material items. He seems ok.

Colton— I’m suspicious of Colton. He’s too ready-made for The Bachelorette: he’s handsome, athletic, loves his dog, owns a nonprofit, allegedly a virgin. Where are his flaws?

I spoke too soon. What in Chris Harrison’s name is he wearing?

Top Limo Entrances 

Leo released his beautiful curly mane to Becca with the line of “let’s let our hair down.” First thing Becca said to him were the words every male suitor wants to hear from a woman: “You have hair like my sister!”

She’s not wrong, though.

Nick came out the limo in a racecar driver suit, clearly making an Arie reference. He asked “what kind of a**hole wears something like this?” and ripped off the outfit to reveal his perfectly tailored suit. I know people were saying it’s in poor taste to bring up Becca’s ex, but I found it hilarious. I thought I was going to dislike Nick because he looks like a huge tool, but it turns out I have a giant crush on him BECAUSE he looks like a huge tool. Nick is the kind of guy you date because you secretly want to emotionally punish yourself. I’m ready for you to ruin my life, Nick. You know where you can find me.

Trent energetically (which is ironic in itself) jumped out the back of a hearse with the line of “Oh my god Becca. When I found out you were The Bachelorette, I literally died.” He was possibly the most “alive” person to ever come out of a hearse.

Garrett pulled up in a minivan with all the equipment necessary for “soccer dad duties.” Producers really are trying to give him an edge. He would be one of the more loved guys this season because of editing if it wasn’t for his giant Instagram fuck up.

Bachelor Mansion Highlights and Lowlights

The Highs

Christon, a former Harlem Globetrotter, jumped over Becca while dunking a basketball. And he did so with all the other guys watching. 

I enjoyed this angle because you get to see the large amount of cameras used during filming. 

Jake getting sent home. I CALLED IT in my “first impressions” review, that him and Becca have probably already met, further proving my theory that attractive people in the same city all know each other. Becca said her and Jake were “acquaintances” and met on “several occasions,” but Jake was unsure if she would remember him since they only met once, alluding to the fact that he may live the majority of his life in a blackout drunk state. As a way to convince Becca to change her mind and keep him around, he said he had a “very transformative year,” whatever that means. Becca was having NONE. OF. IT. and sent his ass home back to Minneapolis. The Bachelorette probably wasn’t for him anyway, especially since production has implemented an alcohol limit.

Blake and Becca had a pretty deep conversation for night one. Blake talked about how his last serious relationship ending abruptly. He said, “If I was able to love the wrong person that much, how much would I be able to love the right person?” Every female on Earth, including Becca agreed with this Tumblr-worthy quote. However, Blake was scammed out of a First Impression Rose by Garrett, who drove up in a minivan and taught Becca how to flyfish in the Bachelor Mansion pool. Blake, you got the First Impression Rose in my eyes, you adorable sweetheart, you.

Jordan’s presence was just an entire highlight reel. As Kaitlyn Bristowe said on her podcast, he has “Jordan-isms.” Some of my favorite ones were:

“People are already going home on the first night.”

“If I don’t get a rose tonight, it would be the biggest upset of all time.”

And in general, him just being offended by everyone’s outfits.

Follow me on Twittter, @thebachdiaries 

The Lows

David/ “Chicken Guy.” I just wasn’t a fan. Dressing up in a costume and saying “Be-CAW” isn’t a personality trait. Also, he looks like the real-life version of the Instagram filter that makes your mouth appear too big for your face.

“Wrong Reasons Police” Chris. Speaking of being creeped out. Chris is the new Iggy of this season: unlikeable, doesn’t belong here, won’t go away and loves to snitch. He’s the “wrong reasons” police, but I can’t really picture someone who takes selfies looking like Derek Zoolander being here for the right reasons. Also his recently-changed Instagram name used to be c_dome, which just creeps me out. If you don’t know what “dome” means, Urban Dictionary is your friend.

The newly implemented alcohol limit was a big lowlight for me. Where were the drunk guys jumping into the pools? We’re going to need someone who says and does stupid things without any sort of inhibitor. Oh wait, we have Jordan. I’m pretty certain he was sober on the first night as he briefly mentioned that Chicken Guy almost got “feathers in his coffee.” Oh the ol’ days of drunken contestants will be missed. Forever in our hearts.

Rose Ceremony

All I need to say here is that Grocery Bae Joe from Chicago went home and the internet has never been more upset about a contestant being sent home night one. He already has about 45K followers on Instagram. If ABC doesn’t bring him to paradise, I will immediately sell all the stock I’ve invested into their company. (Except I don’t invest or even know how to do that crap. But I would if I did because It would just be a terrible business decision to not bring Joe to Paradise.)

Some Takeaways

I can tell Garret and Blake are going to go pretty far based on night one. Based on the season preview, it appears Jason and Colton will go far as well. That literally just might be the final four. However, I don’t follow spoilers, so don’t be that person who tells me what happens. 

I also have a feeling Lincoln might be this season’s villain. Only time will tell how that will play out.

Speaking of Colton, he is allegedly a virgin. However, virginity is a social construct, so anyone can be a virgin if they really believe in themselves. I mean, this franchise has created the most famous fake virgin of all time: Sean Lowe. So sure, Colton’s a virgin.

[drcontrarian]

The future is all about Clouds vs Dirt

Why a long essay on what seems to be socio-political commentary on a business blog, I hear you ask. Well, for want of a better word, let's call it meta-segmentation. The 'segments' of the 'market' at the socio-cultural level ' is where you will find the root cause of long-term trends and shifts in buying behaviours. The brouhaha caused by Nike's sponsorship of Colin Kaepernik is a simple case in point - it wiped $3Bn off the market cap of Nike; so it is best to understand these things.

And the article below will be referenced in future as we discuss other trends and issues related to it, so I need the link as a reference. Here goes...

CLOUD PEOPLE, DIRT PEOPLE

It’s a broad brush, but the world can be divided into two types of people. The fit may not be perfect for every individual, but we do it all the time. Political views are classified as right and left, religious views are for or against and you get climate change believers and deniers.   The interesting thing is that if you do a meta-analysis of these binary positions on a range of social/human issues, it you arrive at two clusters of worldviews as well. On the one hand you get the Cloud people and other hand you get the Dirt people.   (I first read of these terms somewhere else, but I can’t remember the author’s position/definition or indeed where I read it — but the idea stuck as an apt metaphor for the world we live in.)   Cloud people are idealists and Dirt people are pragmatists.   Whilst we all like to see ourselves as a little bit of both, the reality is that when pushed to clarify our position on a range of issues, we tend discover an aggregate of perceptions that coheres with either clouds or dirt.   But there is one particularly odd anomaly in the worldview of the Cloud People that sticks out and can only be seen as an inconvenient truth. And what is fascinating is how they choose to deal with this little inconvenient truth.   The Cloud people generally believe in..

Open borders/ globalism

Pro-choice

Atheism

Climate Change

Pro-LGBTQ

Pro Euthanasia

Liberalism

Big Government

The Dirt People generally believe in…

Controlled immigration/ nationalism

Pro-Life

Theism

Climate Sceptic

Traditional Family Structures

Anti-Euthanasia

Conservatism

Small Government

If you try to understand the central thesis of the Cloud People, they will argue that it is ‘science’. Gay people are born that way, climate science is conclusive and science has not proven the existence of God.   But if you scratch the surface, the argument falls apart, and all that it reveals is the same prejudice they accuse the Dirt People of.   Whilst a definitive scientific right/wrong answer is not possible with many of these social issues, the Cloud people are not even willing to consider the possibilities of downside, and completely shut down debate.   Gay people are born that way, and should be accepted on that basis. Yet, the very idea of gender is fluid and as a social construct can simply be chosen from a spectrum of options. The biology that reveals real scientific differences are irrelevant.   The economic science of globalism and open borders is irrelevant. There are compelling arguments that (a) developing nations in particular are impacted more adversely and (b) that globalisation tends to centralise power and wealth amongst a small elite. Yet facts inconveniently get in the way of the Cloud dogma.   Thomas Sowell, American economist and author, has statistically shown over decades the net negative effect of (white) welfare programs on black societies, yet Cloud People are so convicted of their power and their obligation to do ‘good’ that these facts are inconveniently ignored. There are many examples and studies to this effect.   Consider this: The rise of the welfare state in the 1960s contributed greatly to the demise of the black family as a stable institution. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among African Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the War on Poverty. Children raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to grow up poor and to eventually engage in criminal behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In 2010, blacks (approximately 13% of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide, 31.8% of arrests for forcible rape, 33.5% of arrests for aggravated assault, and 55% of arrests for robbery. Also as of 2010, the black poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higherthan the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in the U.S. were living in poverty.   This is an inconvenient truth too. In order to maintain coherence in their worldview (which generally subscribes to Anti-racism) the Cloud People have to (a) ignore the facts and (b) ironically and perversely focus on race, and so perpetuate the distinctions they claim do not exist.   There are many examples of how Cloud people selectively embrace truth, science and rational argument, but to summarise:

Science shows there are gender differences — but ignore that

Science shows there is climate change — accept that

Science shows life begins at conception — ignore that

Science shows welfare programs are net negative — ignore that

Science shows there are racial differences — ignore that

Science cannot prove God — accept science

This incoherent approach to reason and fact (as embodied in science) is really interesting to explore. The obvious question is WHY and the next question is HOW they resolve the conundrum in order to eliminate the inevitable cognitive dissonance.   The latter question first: The general response to this issue has been the rise of Postmodernism. Led by academics and philosophers, it was adopted by mainstream media and primary education over time and has embedded the essential relativism at the heart of our culture. Truth is now whatever you define it as. What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.   How perverse is this? They claim ‘science’ as the bedrock and simultaneously claim that ‘truth’ is whatever the individual feels.   How perverse is this? They claim equality and diversity for all, and it order to do so they have to focus on differences and disadvantages that inherently positions them as the ‘saviours’ and benefactors and the all round good guys. That is, whilst I claim to be your equal, I am the one in the position to ‘help’ you. (And I will do that by keeping you dependent on the welfare system I create.)   How perverse is this? They claim there is no moral authority, and no basis of any moral authority, but yet simultaneously claim that OUR way is how we ought to treat people’.   All of these positions are self-defeating.   If my truth does not have to be your truth, then there is no way WE ought to treat people. If everything is relative, does that not apply to YOUR claim that everything is relative, so I don’t have accept YOUR truth that things are relative? If you deny differences between humans, why do you insist we classify ourselves into a box on a gender spectrum or why do you focus on our ‘race’ so much?   By adopting relativism as the philosophical foundation, truth no longer matters — in fact does not exist — and so the Cloud People get around the existence of the inconvenient truths that exist by defining truth as a personal feeling.   Because the inconvenient truths exist, Cloud People redefine truth.   Why?   Many theories about that exist. Some argue that it is way of creating a sub-class of voters that are dependent on the State and therefore will always vote for the side of politics that will likely vote for the political wing that will perpetuate those systems. There are (complex, sociological) theories about ‘victimhood’ — which essentially means society functions like the proverbial ‘helicopter parent’ in the interests of keeping minors safe.   I think it is merely a manifestation of archetypal human behaviours. (Occam’s razor — the simplest answer is often the right answer, and in this case the answer that that has been around the longest and still seems to hold true, is very likely the correct answer.)   It is a trait that was evidenced for millennia, and then captured in the Bible (The Original Sin) and consequently embedded in Western Civilisation as an essential trait of human beings. The story of Adam and Eve is that story of mankind, refusing to accept the distinction between man and God, refusing to adopt a posture of humility and submission, and wanting to have the awareness and level of consciousness of God, chose to bite the apple. It the original sin — believing that we are God.   Having been fed a relentless diet (via media especially) of ‘believe in yourself’ and ‘you can do anything you set your mind to’ created a trajectory that manifests to this day of people playing God.   Dirt People on the other hand are pragmatists.   For them science actually matters. When science reveals that humans are different, they accept that. When science suggests there is a better way, they change their ways. Yet, they also understand that science is merely a description of the objective, natural world and accept that their practical experience of life also suggests that there is ‘something else’ that is not natural, and attempt to articulate that spiritual dimension as best they can.   Philosophically, the Dirt Peoples’ worldview is coherent. They recognise the reality that you and I are different, and then seek to find a way that makes it better for both of us, rather than trying to make us the same. Like good scientists everywhere, they are fundamentally sceptical. If the science is inconclusive, Dirt People recognise it as such. If it is conclusive, they want to consider pragmatic options to address/resolve it.   It is clearly a law of Nature that the strongest will survive. Whilst it may feel good to protect the weak, it is more rational in the long run to make the weak stronger. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. You can’t learn to walk without falling. It may feel good to feed the animals in the wild, but it is not rational. Thoughts and ideas matter, but never at the expense of what actually works.   Life is sacrosanct. No suicide. No abortion. No euthanasia. The only time when another life us taken, is when that life has broken this law of the sanctity of (other) human life.   People are different. Some people are good and some are bad. Some are good at certain things and some are bad at certain things. How do you weave together these differences into a reality that accepts the differences, celebrates the differences without turning everything into a mushy sameness under the guise of equality?   Cloud People and Dirt People are different.   Cloud people are so fervent in their beliefs, as demonstrated repeatedly thought their behaviours, that they are willing to adopt fascist tactics. People who disagree with their views are doxxed, punished, de-platformed, trolled and boycotted — all in the fervent belief that it is justified for a ‘good’ cause.   It just so happens that it is ‘their’ cause that is the good one and it is the only one that can be good.

IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS

Organisations are finding themselves being corralled into taking a view on a range of social issues (often by a small, vocal minority). After the endorsement (of the Cloud Philosophy) comes the next step and that is participation and active support, and then the final stage is where organisations become weaponised. Ie. the organisation becomes a tool of destruction where its resources/power used to destroy opponents.   To illustrate:   Step 1: ENDORSE: Surely you support gay marriage? You should come out and say so. (It sounds reasonable. What another person does in their bedroom is none of my business. Organisation complies.)   Step 2: DEMONSTRATE If you support gay marriage, then you should have education programs in your organisation to educate the ignorant people about the benefits of diversity and to promote tolerance. (How do you argue with that? Organisation complies.)   Step 3: WEAPONISE Person X is non-compliant and in breach of your own policy about supporting this cause. You should fire them/ deny them/ punish them. The organisation’s endorsement is turned into a weapon of social destruction. (Let’s take Israel Folau’s car away. Organisation complies.)   Funny how what another person does in their bedroom has now become your business.   So that is implication #1.  Organisations who choose to participate in social causes eventually become a pawn (and weapon) for that social cause.   I strongly warn organisations NOT to go down that path. An organisation is (on a practical level) not a human being. It is a hierarchical arrangement of economic relationships and because power is unevenly distributed, the ‘organisation’ typically ‘behaves’ as directed by the small group of people at the top. This group of people are responding to their own economic interests, and are subject to their own individual biases. It is not a democratic entity and this group of executives do not and cannot express the ‘will of the people’. So, the idea of organisational support for a cause is misnomer; it is merely the position taken by a small group of people in power.   As reasonable as it may seem on the surface, supporting or endorsing a cause is unjustifiable on the simple basis that it is NOT your money and it is NOT your organisation to commit. There are many causes and the people who make up the organisation support a whole range of these causes — often on opposing sides. Organisational support for one side is (a) divisive (b) dilutory, and © usually unmandated use of resources.   Thirdly, it is a slippery slope and soon you will find yourself dealing with the intersectionality problem. The inevitable outcome is that you will have to make decisions that implode under the weight of assumptions, qualifications and contradictions.   Diversity may or may not be a good idea, so let people (in the organisation) who subscribe to that continue to hold that idea. Let those who believe climate change is real, believe that. And let those who believe God is real do that too. If you create a ‘safe space’ for LGBT members, will you do so for MGTOW members? And, since you ask, no there is not really a substantive, logical difference as both groups claim to be oppressed by society and have ‘evidence’ to that effect. And both groups of people have the right to freely associate. Eventually, someone on the executive will have to say ‘no’ to some cause, and the basis for that will amount to nothing more than personal preference and/or conformity with current cultural narrative.   Adopting these social causes inevitably lead to the organisation being hijacked by the cause, and then becoming a weapon for the cause.   And then, implication #2   It should be pretty clear that I consider myself to be a pragmatist — so I identify as a ‘dirt people’. Whilst you may want to throw accusations of racism, sexism or genderism or whatever, allow me to be explicit. ( I don’t feel the need to ‘defend’ myself, but want to merely articulate what I believe.)   I am not a racist. But I recognise different races and think that the differences are to be celebrated. I think some races are culturally better adapted to operate in the Western Civilised world, but I think Western Civilisation is going to implode, so it is not necessarily better than another civilisation. I am not a racist because I believe in God and the sanctity of life and the unique character & soul that every human being is imbued with.   I am not a homophobe. I believe my family and friends can attest to that. I do also believe however that the traditional family structure is the best system for creating stable societies with best outcomes for all people over time and that by changing these structures we are tampering with something we don’t understand. Accepting or respecting someone’s choices does not mean that should become the basis for adjusting the fabric of society.   I believe there two genders and I believe gender dysphoria exists. I believe those who struggle with that should be loved, helped and respected — because, you know, sanctity of human life. That does not mean that the fabric of society should be altered to promote and embed something we poorly understand.   I believe in truth, therefore I believe in God. I don’t believe the ‘truth’ is what I feel it is or what you feel it is or what we all may think at a point in time. I believe there is an ultimate truth, because it is not rationally possible to believe differently and without reason we have nothing.   I don’t believe in abortion or euthanasia. I think that once we assume to know what life is and what life is worth and how all our lives are intricably and inseparably interwoven, we can never act in contravention. Life is all we have, and it is the one thing we all have in common and if we commoditise/productise it — we are messing with the very essence of being.   Now that I have come out as ‘dirt people’, I should be prepared to be trolled, harassed and isolated and even punished.   Of course I hope not, but if I believe that we should speak to the truth, then not speaking is the same as lying.   In the context of business, I should then come out too and say that I don’t believe in programs to promote causes. I don’t believe in special awards and programs for victim groups. I believe that we should create fair systems, I believe people should be treated equally and not preferentially — no matter what their claimed victim status. I believe people who are unable to participate in the system fully can be trained/guided and that we shouldn’t change the system to manipulate a different outcome as it reduces the stability and the longevity of the system. I believe diversity programs are exercises in virtue signalling at best and at worst, executive self-interest attempting to attain preferred economic status or cynical attempts to avoid economic punishment.   By means of analogy, I believe we should build a ramp for the disabled to get access to the building, and not deny able-bodied people access to the building. And for what it’s worth, anyone who feels like it should be able to walk up the ramp too.   I believe organisations should make and market their widgets as ethically as possible. And that is all.   I believe that social justice issues (which clearly exist and must be solved) are best left to individuals to resolve in their respective communities, nations and societies.   I am not denying that disadvantages don’t exist. I am not suggesting that abuses of the system has never and does not occur. What I vehemently disagree with is how we achieve an outcome that reflects truth, justice, love and equality.   It cannot be equality of outcome, it has to be equality of opportunity.   The cloud people look at Usain Bolt and argue that he should be handicapped, or the rules should be altered to deduct the time difference from other athletes so that everyone can win the race. Even in a horse race, where we have perfect data on historical performance and tried and tested handicapping system, there are still winners and losers.   The dirt people argue that not everyone can win. The other athlete should train as hard as he could, and he still can’t be fast enough to beat Usain, maybe learn to be a chef. Or race car driver. Or a coach. Or a marathon runner. At the very least, learn to accept and be happy that you have tried to the best you can.

The truth can wait. For it lives a long time. [Schopenhauer.]

The way you do anything is the way you do everything. [Anon.]

Image Credit: https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/dirt-road-and-clouds-cat-connor.jpg

[dorothydelgadillo]

The F Word: Nevertheless, She Parented

Welcome to The F Word, where we, Skillcrush staffers Lauren Lang and special guest Maren Vernon, discuss issues that impact all of us—both in and out of the workplace. We know that, for us, coming to understand the f-word (in this case, feminism), and how important it is in the scope of our lives, didn’t happen overnight. We hope you’ll join us once a month as we meet to discuss power, identity, and the changes we want to see in the world.

Lauren: Maren, welcome to the F-Word! It’s so great to be with you today chatting about the joys of feminist parenting—and specifically, motherhood.

Maren: Thanks, Lauren! I have my cup of coffee in hand. I’ve taken a deep breath. And I’m ready to jump in.

Lauren: With three kids (all girls) between us, you and I have some insight into what being a mom is really like. And man, it’s tough. I’m constantly running interference against mean kids at school, media messaging that disrespects women in any number of ways, and the little microaggressions that fly under the radar and become tiny, but growing, insecurities in my daughter’s spirit.

On the heels of Oprah’s AMAZING Golden Globes speech where she envisions a “new day on the horizon” where “nobody ever has to say ‘me too’ again,” this is the future parents also aspire to. But it can seem like an insurmountable task to shield our kids from the reality of the world in 2018. Where do we start?

Maren: I’m starting to think I should have brought wine to calm my nerves when I think of everything they are facing… But Oprah’s speech!

My gals are still young and just starting in school but my kids are not only girls but girls of color, and finding the line between preparing them and not scaring them is something my husband and I talk about a lot. I can tell you that an early way I’m trying to raise them to feel they can do anything and ignore the haters is through stories and good role modeling.

I used to work in publishing, so books will always be important in my house. I like to look for picture books—since that is the stage we are in—with strong, and ideally diverse, female characters using their smarts and creativity to problem solve, lead, or demonstrate kindness. I could name books all day but Pocket Full of Colors (about Mary Blair), Drum Dream Girl;I Am Truly; She Persisted; Ada Twist, Scientist; and Rosie Revere, Engineer spring to mind as particularly great examples.

Of course my struggle is that I want them to feel independent and in control of the course their life takes, buuuuuut I also need them to listen when I say, “Come on, dude, that is not a great idea.” So we find ways to negotiate and I let them take the lead when appropriate. Just yesterday my oldest snuck business cards out of my office to give to friends so they could get their moms to schedule playdates with me. I caught her with the cards as she headed into school, but I appreciated her pluck and determination and I let her move forward with her plan. How have you started introducing The F Word in your household?

Lauren: Okay, business cards? Genius.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about choosing media with strong depictions of women. My daughter loves the Rebel Girls book series, which features small vignettes and beautiful illustrations of notable women and girls throughout history who have exhibited strength and determination (including the women featured in Hidden Figures, which she loved). We talk openly about these women’s struggles and the discrimination they’ve worked to overcome—based on gender, yes, but also race or ethnicity or religion or age or ability or sexual orientation. These books have been a great resource both for empowering my daughter and also spurring deep discussions about her own privilege.

So media is important… BUT I agree that the best opportunity to introduce feminism—both to girls and to boys—is to teach the concept by example and model what feminism looks like. It looks like empowering and respecting our children, expecting them to respect others, and empowering them to speak up when they feel unsafe. It looks like mothers who have agency and confidence and it looks like fathers who understand consent and who listen. It looks like the world that Her Majesty Queen Oprah says that we want for our children.

And it benefits us as mothers to find what that looks like too, because SOCIETY HAS NOT GOTTEN THE MEMO. There is so much pressure on mothers to do everything right and to have perfectly behaved and brilliant children at all times, and to never, ever lose our patience. And so, feminist motherhood is just as much about how we as women consciously choose to construct ourselves as parents, by bucking those impossible standards and finding what works for us. Maren, there are so, so many ways to “fail” as a mother, to the extent that—SPOILER ALERT!—there is literally no way to “succeed.” So let’s get specific: What criticism do you face about your role as a parent?

Maren: I find external criticism most often comes in comments along the lines of, “Working and mothering and side hustles… You should give yourself a break. You are trying to do too much.” The implication is: You should focus more on being a mother.

Usually the things I love to do—that make me feel fulfilled outside of being a parent—are the first things I’m expected to cut out. Then that just leaves me grumpy and resentful. Does that make me a better parent? No.

I need the side hustle or the part-time job that keeps me intellectually curious. I have fun doing art projects with my kids or exploring the science museum, but I also need challenges and positive stress and to learn new things. (Let me take a moment to acknowledge my privilege that I even have some choices to make, and also to say that just like I don’t want to be judged for my choice, I’m not going to judge another’s path. I’m just acknowledging that wouldn’t be living as my authentic self.)

I started learning to code (with Skillcrush!) when my first was about a year old. I’d suffered from some postpartum depression and was generally feeling down about my abilities and intellect because parenting was a lot harder than I expected, and despite all the reading and prep, I didn’t feel like some things came as easy to me (and social media was NOT helping). I’m not lying when I say that learning to code gave me my confidence back. Maybe my kid didn’t sleep through the night last night and refused to eat the ten different foods I prepared but, hey! I got that image to float beside some text! I am good at something! It was the outlet and challenge I needed to get my mojo back. And you know what? When I felt better about myself, I know I became a mom who was more fun to be around. Losing your identity is no joke.

What criticisms have you faced as a parent, Lauren, and how have you dealt with it?

Lauren: There is SO much here that resonates with my experience, particularly in the idea that I have a right to make a choice to be a multidimensional human being whose existence is not fulfilled entirely by my child—and the notion that this choice is actually a positive thing for her to witness. THE HORROR: a mother who is also a person with interests and talents and—gasp—ambitions!

If I reveal myself to be stressed or anxious about ANYTHING in my life, you’re right—I receive unsolicited advice that the first thing to go should be what makes me happy. The message is clear: My career is a luxury, and any mission I value outside of motherhood is somehow deeply unfair to my daughter—even when, ironically, that mission is to create a world in which she is empowered and free.

So how have I dealt with it? I keep doing what brings me deep satisfaction. I try to tune out the noise and follow my true north. And in doing so, I show my child the best possible person I can be. I try my best, and sometimes I’m a shitty mom. (And sometimes I’m a shitty employee and sometimes I’m a shitty spouse and sometimes I’m shitty at keeping my shit together.) But I think I’m okay with that. Perfection is for Beyonce, and she has help. And speaking of support, what roles do you think male partners have in all this? Heterosexual coupling puts vastly differently expectations for how mothers and fathers interact with their children: a mom who takes her kid to the park is like the default while the dad who does the same is OMG THE BEST DAD EVER. Or a dad who slightly raises his voice to his kids is giving some “tough love” while a mom who does the same is a horrible person who should have her kids taken away. What do we take from this double standard?

Maren: I’m incredibly lucky to have a husband doesn’t expect me to fall in lockstep with gender roles, but at the moment he is the primary breadwinner and I am the lead parent. So by default I am expected to know what is going on with their schools and their friends and to volunteer for all the things and get the laundry done and have food in the house. And those efforts feel rarely acknowledged.

But just because I am the lead parent doesn’t change the fact that sometimes I want to spend an hour coding, rather than at the park with my children. And the fact that, when I think about doing something for me or for my career, I almost immediately consider it to be selfish—is problematic. I’m criticizing myself before anyone else has the chance to.

Lauren: YES. I think a lot of it comes down to the concept of “emotional labor,” right? This idea that women have to shoulder so much of the unseen knowledge and work to keep everything running smoothly—and a lot of that is learned behavior.

One way I’ve experimented with lessening the burden of all there is to do is just by…dropping some of it. (#badmomconfessions)

I’ve stopped monitoring whether there’s milk in the fridge or whether library books are in the backpack on library day at school. Practicing personal responsibility should come at an early age…and picking up a young able-bodied person’s dishes and transporting them to the dishwasher for her? Or picking out the perfect birthday gift for my husband’s mother, when he’s known her 20 years longer than I have? Nope! Ain’t nobody got time for that.

And it’s not that I would never do any of these things—I often have. I love my family. But it’s been a long unwinding of the expectation that I will, just because my ovaries make it so.

Maren: Are we long lost twins?! My anal-retentive nature will probably never let me forget how much toilet paper is in the house at any given time, but the house chores are gender neutral and everyone can pitch in in some way shape or form, big or little. Don’t like the chore I’ve offered you? Pitch me a compromise! My husband and I definitely do that. Never too early to practice those job skills, right?

Lauren: HA! Totally. Okay, Maren, last question! And this is a fun one. :) What is, to you, the absolute best part of being a parent? What did you never anticipate about having these little people in your life that has been delightful and surprising? For me, it’s been experiencing my daughter’s wicked sense of humor, which grows sharper and drier by the day. She’s only seven, and I can’t believe what she comes up with as it is—not to mention in 20 years when she has her own HBO stand-up special.

Maren: I love that! I think what has been fun for me is seeing the things they create out of seemingly nothing. It really is true that some buttons and a cardboard tube and some pencils and a mismatched sock can suddenly entertain them for an hour and is ten times more fun than anything I’d buy. I really just need to step back and get out of their way and let them have agency over the project (that includes letting them sort out their differences because I can’t always be there to fight their battles). It is so fascinating to watch how their minds work, and I’m often inspired by new ideas or challenged by them to step outside my comfort zone.

from Web Developers World https://skillcrush.com/2018/01/17/feminist-parenting-working-moms/

[cromeromeromero]

ロメロ レポート 01: But, there are no faults in the sunlight.

ロメロ レポート 01: But, there are no faults in the sunlight. Addie Wagenknecht x So Kanno and Yang02 This article originally appears here: http://themassage.jp/en/romero-report-1/

This essay compares the work of US born artist Addie Wagenknecht with Japanese artist pair So Kanno and Yang02 [KS+y2]. The focus of this essay is to examine how Wagenknecht and KS+y2 utilize found or repurposed materials (primarily technological devices) in unique ways, going against the materials original intention. Both Wagenknecht and KS+y2 push the boundaries of various objects - drones, robotics, spray paint, 3D printing, household objects - eloquently rewriting their potential. They reveal the true value of appropriation in contemporary art, which goes beyond simply copying and into creating a new perspective out of what already exists.

We don’t often play around with the capacities of our technological devices. Rather than elastic or malleable technology, we are left with the mundane and habitual. Of course, when we do bend the social rules and norms of our computers or social media, others might tilt their heads in confusion. There was a period of time where I was very active on Facebook, but all I did was create absurd posts. This was a form of gentle trolling maybe, but there was no real audience for the content. I was trolling in a vacuum, trolling time away. This action, however, makes me think of Wagenknecht and KS+y2, whom find the flexibility in materials and use it to create potent commentary on social and political concerns surrounding the digital age.

In the arena of art, their works offer a sense of possibility and freedom toward redefining what an artist creates and how they create it. They play with errors and randomness, imbuing a sense of spirit into circuit boards, metal, and house plants. In this way, the artists here are observers, looking at what is, and what could be.

ADDIE WAGENKNECHT: BLACK HAWK PAINT Black Hawk Paint, which began in 2007, is a series of ongoing paintings in which Wagenknecht pilots drones to create compositions. The drones, using simple maneuvers and instructions, spread acrylic and pigment across a canvas. In earlier versions of the series, using black acrylic paint, the drones had some difficulty. Their wing blades and bodies would get stuck in the substance, leaving the canvas to have splotches, smears, and circular markings. In video documentation of the artwork we see the drone struggling and crying as it tries to navigate the foreign substance.

Since the initial series, Wagenknecht has implemented colored pigment, gunpowder, and other materials on vellum paper. The drone seems happier, being able to paint while gliding across the surface. The combination of these materials at times will change the appearance of the painting depending on the temperature and sunlight. The coloration of this series is also inspired by the Holi festival, which celebrates color and love - ironically counterposing the drone’s original purpose. In this series, many of the works are vertically displayed, expressing a feeling of flight or lightness. This reflects one of the many dichotomies Wagenknecht presents in her work. Here, the delicacy of the compositions counteracts the rough metallic drone.

In the newest series of paintings the drones seem to fly more effortlessly, unbound from the sticky nature of the acrylic. Circular markings, and other imprints remain remain, but a more delicate touch is present. The variations in the series demonstrates the capacity for drones as a tool for art. Different drone models and different materials allow for an array of possibilities, all of which push the drone further away from it’s initial intention as a device for surveillance and war.

KS+y2: SENSELESS DRAWING BOT Senseless Drawing Bot [SDB], an ongoing series created in 2011, reflects on the relationship between machines and humans. Variations of SDB have focused on portraiture, drawing, and collaboration with kids and other artists. The series touches upon the notion of authorship in contemporary art, the autonomy of machines, and the definition of graffiti art. In the series, KS+y2 create custom designed robots that paint and draw on horizontal surfaces. The machines have been featured in train stations, museums, and other public settings.

In the original iteration of the works a machine sits atop a skateboard and moves left and right to spray paint a wall. Watching the machine move and perform is often as important as viewing the final tag. As the machine flails its single arm, in pendulum like motions, it feels like an authentic imitation of a human graffiti artist. Still, many elements of the machine are entirely different from a human hand. As apparent in the title of the works, the machine is senseless. It does not have a specific motivation in completing the work, it is not writing its name or making a political statement; it is simply tagging the walls. This randomness is something humans cannot hope to imitate as our actions always have some sort of motivation or decision making process attached to them.

Because SDB was custom made, it is not the same as other appropriated objects and materials discussed in this essay. In its senselessness, KS+y2 allows the machine a sense of freedom or autonomy to create a painting. By not interrupting the machine, they are allow it to exist untethered from human intervention. In a broad sense, the purpose of a machine is redefined, but more specifically SDB reconsiders the nature of graffiti art and the concept of authorship in contemporary art.

Graffiti is the co-opting or claiming of a space through painting. In tagging a building, a graffiti artist marks and appropriates a surface. In SDB, KS+y2, allow the machine to take on the identity of a graffiti artist, giving  away some authorship of the work. These aspects are interesting to consider as contemporary graffiti artists begin to enter public institutions to create their work, which arguably goes against the original identity of graffiti art. For example, some might argue that seeing a Banksy artwork in a museum or an art collection removes his credibility as a true graffiti artist. Compared to this SDB has no concern for where it is, it only cares about tagging a surface with its imprint. In this way it could be argued that the machine has found a way to exist in the spirit of actual graffiti artists while still producing works within the walls of art institutions.

ADDIE WAGENKNECHT: OPTIMIZATION OF PARENTING, PART 2

Recently a surge of articles have popped up discussing the challenges of raising children while pursuing personal or career goals. It is a nice follow up to the surge of previous articles about the new dating culture inspired by Tinder and other dating apps. While the news is late to the reality of the issue, it remains relevant to millennials of certain countries such as the US and Japan. The situation is particularly difficult on women as they are pressured by society to have kids and fulfill many roles and responsibilities. Wagenknecht addresses these aspects through Optimization of Parenting, Part  2. Utilizing custom software and a robotic arm, the device rocks a bassinet back and forth in reaction to a baby crying or waking up.

Wagenknecht creates a solution to some sort of societal issue or anxiety. The work confronts expectations of mothers to be full time parents on top of their other responsibilities and the sacrifices they must make to do so. Regarding the appropriation of the mechanical arm, these machines are usually used for mass production or for some sort of manufacturing role. Viewing this work also makes me think of Yang02’s solo exhibition Examples, in which household objects, a suitcase, pedestal, a toy car, and other objects, are given mobility and serve a different more function. Both Optimization and Examples seem to express an interest for understanding how robotics and software can and change our perspectives of daily life. In Optimization of Parenting, the use of the arm for taking care of a baby is sardonic but incredibly relevant. People are replaced by machines and yet we still put an enormous expectation on our work or raising children (both as full time jobs). Considering this, Wagenknecht appropriates the arm to confront societal standards and gender norms.

KS+y2: Asemic Languages

In Asemic Languages a machine uses artificial intelligence to emulate the motion and shape of handwriting from a group of ten international artists. The machine learns the symbols and patterns of each letter creating new symbols. While it might look as though it is attempting to write, it is actually drawing. This feels deceptive in some sense, as we often expect machines to fulfill some sort of purpose.

The machine, in removing the meaning of characters it writes, allows us to reflect on our experiences with language and communication. When we learn new words we apply visual techniques to remember them.  For example, many students learning Japanese always think of the ツ symbol as a smiley face. It is human nature to form images in our mind when viewing letters and characters.  Over time, however, we move on from this and focus on forming sentences. As we age it becomes increasingly difficult to remember what our first experiences with languages were like. Asemic Languages acknowledges this and creates new glyphs that we can view with a new sense of curiosity.

ADDIE WAGENKNECHT: LIBERATOR VASES

The liberator gun is a recurring motif in Addie Wagenknecht’s work, utilizing it for shooting blank canvases, constructing chandeliers and most recently creating a series of vases. Released in 2013, the liberator is an open-source 3D-printable handgun. After thousands of downloads and in 48 hours the US Government attempted to remove its presence from the internet, though traces remain.

When Wagenknecht repurposes something it is as if it is cracked open, allowing it’s locked up emotion or feelings to be revealed. Anxiety, humor, awkwardness, hope, futility, confidence, and self-doubt all spill out of the works. In the Liberator Vases, while it is humorous, there is a darker side to the piece. We often forget that technology can be used for dangerous intentions. Liberator Vases speaks to this through subversion. In the series, the liberator gun is transformed into a mundane everyday object. It is made inert and repurposed for use in suburban homes to hold flowers. Normally more guns means more power and violence. Here several liberators are stacked on top of each other to form the foundation of the vase. Their appearance reminds me in a way of the Photoshop clone stamping tool. The original imposing nature of the gun is erased, and the vase becomes an artifact. As an artifact, the vases depict a moment in time where 3D printed weapons are readily available to be used for violence or household decoration.

KS+y2: AVATARS

KS+y2’s most recent work, the exhibition Avatars, redefines both physical and virtual space. Taking place at YCAM from February 18 - May 14, 2017, KS+y2 have installed 16 objects in the art space that can be remotely controlled over the internet by anyone around the world. The design and actions of the robotics have a humorous spirit. A potted plant, a roomba (an object Wagenknecht has also appropriated), and other objects, are repurposed to incorporate webcams, microphones, wheels for movement, and other parts. They become moveable and communicative objects - allowing interaction and dialogue from denizens on the internet to those in Yamaguchi.

There are many dualities presented in the installation including object and human, interior and exterior, virtual and real, inanimate and animate, home and public. Artificial intelligence and human intelligence also comes to mind. The piece operates almost like a two-way mirror. Controlling a machine online means a viewer can see the YCAM and visitors, but their vision is limited, they cannot see the object as they control it. On the other side, a visitor in YCAM has no idea who is operating the moving device, they simply see a machine moving about in strange ways. It is possible as well to communicate over the phone device in the installation, but you’ll never know who it is and might not even speak the same language. The exhibition itself, and YCAM producing it, is a large step in the idea of art institutions crossing cultural and territorial borders to allow people to communicate and interact through art. The artwork is impressive and reminds me that institutions in New York, the U.S., or Europe, are not the only locations to find innovations in art and digital culture. It leaves me to wonder what topics artists from different countries are concerned with in regards to contemporary art and digital culture. The project has even spurred dialogue over reddit between internet users and YCAM staff. This occurrence seems rare and very promising in the sense of what contemporary art can do beyond being sold for millions of dollars. As a side note as well, Wagenknecht’s artwork Anonymous also comes to mind in regards to how museums can subvert space.

I would not be surprised in many regards if Avatars spurs inspiration by other artists or institutions to comment on similar discourse about telepresence in art. While we see much art about virtuality and entering virtual spaces we shouldn’t so quickly ignore that we are physical beings; there are other ways to connect with art and technology rather than simply entering 3D worlds. In that regard, KS+y2 in appropriating common household objects, and YCAM in presenting the project, redefine public and virtual space, demonstrating that art institutions will and must adapt to better represent the digital world.

What is, what could be. Recently I tried writing a sentence in Japanese into Google Translate: [でも、あめりかにみししぴはたいやきがありません] Google wasn’t able to translate what I was saying into English and instead produced: [But, there are no faults in the sunlight.] I have taken photos of other translation failures before, but this sentence was particularly wonderful. I do not get upset when Google fails, rather I enjoy this moment in time time where imperfections and misunderstandings can exist. This reminds me of when Google suggested I say, [木はやおいにおいがする] instead of [木は良いにおいがする]. Despite these humorous or embarrassing moments, I never want it to be “perfect”. Unexpected results set up interesting situations. Wagenknecht and KS+y2 leads me to believe that technology, devices, and applications, should not be viewed simply as right or wrong, working or broken.  

Examining their work makes me think of two points. One is that the machines and materials that surround us are variable. Our expectations of them, what we think they should do, or that they have errors, are just our own projections. This way of thinking is limiting, and we apply this way about other things in the world too. The second thought is that we should play around with and break things rather than simply accepting them as is. This might sound like some type of hacker manifesto, but it is more about appreciating things for what they are capable of rather than sticking to what they originally were meant to be. Wagenknecht and KS+y2 are able to see the beauty in adaptability and imperfection instead of focusing on what is practical or logical.

[dead-not-sad]

Postmodernism and Metafiction in Italo Calvino’s The Nonexistent Knight: An Exploration of a Change in Mindset of the Artistic and Literary Culture after the Modern Era

The following is a paper I wrote a few years back regarding metafiction, postmodernism, and existentialism in literature.

Italo Calvino’s The Nonexistent Knight is a beautiful display of literary techniques, as well as a wonderful array of depictions of satire towards the tales of the Charlemagne era of France. Calvino shows his opinions through hidden meanings of his own characters’ personalities and actions. In order to understand the change in the mindset of a culture through literature and art during the 20th century, one should perform an analytical examination of Calvino’s The Nonexistent Knight with regard to postmodernism and metafiction.

To begin seeing the usage of postmodernism and metafiction in the context of the novel, one must first know what the two viewpoints and states of mind are (“Postmodern” 1). Postmodernism is a section of art and literary history when many artists strayed away from the modernistic point of view, which was very systematic and pro-progress. Modernism denounced that which could not be observed, and was founded in a very literal world based solely on observation. Postmodernism hit a strong point in literature during the early 20th century, towards the end of WWII, largely due to the use of the atom bomb. This gave reason for people to question the validity of scientific progress as the only acceptable route of exploration, and the belief that there is no absolute or guaranteed truth took hold. Postmodernism goes directly against everything that modernism stood for, as it takes things that had previously been seen as true or undeniably valid, and puts them in question, while taking things which were previously regarded as outrageous and gives them an opportunity to be accepted. Social constructs such as gender boundaries, social classes, and systematic order were driven farther out from guaranteed belief. Metafiction is a form of postmodernist idealism, and the form of abstraction and expression that is depicted is one of peculiar situations. For example, a technique commonly used to depict metafiction is author intrusion into one’s own novel, or the “breaking of the fourth wall.” Other techniques such as vicious circles, fragmentation, and loose plot can be observed in The Nonexistent Knight as well. Individually, these two techniques are seen throughout the novel in characters, actions, and events, and they also work together to form the basis of Calvino’s underlying satirical message about war and Charlemagne’s reign over France. To see how Calvino uses these techniques, one must look deeply into the text of the novel itself.

Postmodernism can be seen throughout The Nonexistent Knight in characters such as Agilulf and Torrismund, as well as in events such as Agilulf’s disappearance. To begin, Agilulf is the book’s incarnation of modernism, as far as his actions are concerned. He performs tasks in a systematic order, and there is a “right way” to do everything. For example, when Agilulf is with Priscilla, he has a method to making her bed, making her look beautiful, and even positioning her bed with relation to the sunlight which is cast through her window. Even when she finally gets him into her bed, says “‘the fire is smoking. I will get up to see why the flue does not draw’” (Calvino 102). Priscilla’s only wish is to have Agilulf in embrace in her bed, and he instead goes about the room fixing things to make the entire scene “correct.” This shows Calvino’s depiction of modernism because Agilulf will not acknowledge the fact that she is throwing herself at him, and the more important thing to him is keeping the room proper. Even when religion comes up, Calvino shows a flaw of modernism by making Agilulf unable to see any of the other religions as acceptable. His own religion, Christianity (most likely only because it is the religion of Charlemagne, whom he regards as his master), is the only religion that Agilulf will tolerate. When he meets Gurduloo in Morocco, Gurduloo is with some Moors on a fishing vessel. They ask for Agilulf’s help, but he tells them that “knights do not join enterprises [. . .] if conducted by enemies of his religion” (Calvino 111). At the end of the novel, Agilulf disappears into thin air and “‘[. . .] leave[s] [his] armor to Sir Raimbaut of Roussillon’” (Calvino 132). Symbolically, this can be interpreted by a reader as the passing on of the modernistic point of view to open up a window of opportunity for postmodernism to slide in. Another character who shows Calvino’s postmodern thoughts quite well is Torrismund, who has a realization about the falseness of and lack of solidity to the very idea of war itself, when he and Raimbaut are wandering along and debating the topic. His most profound argument towards war with regards to postmodernism is that “‘Insignia, marks, ranks, titles [. . .] All mere show. Those paladins’ shields with armorial bearings and mottoes are not made of iron; they’re just paper, you can put your finger through them’” (Calvino 68). This statement is bold, for Torrismund denounces the entire idea of knighthood in one simple phrase, saying that one can put their finger through the so-called iron shields, for they mean absolutely nothing. This shows Calvino’s postmodernistic thinking undoubtedly, because Torrismund is showing that war, soldiers, and rankings are all mere constructs of a culture so bent on war and addicted to fighting that nothing else seems to make sense. War is just a sick game played for the names of kings. None of the knights are better than the average man according to Calvino, shown through Torrismund’s strong opinions. The actions that one has completed are not what defines their character.

However, postmodernism gets even more specific when one delves into the realm of metafiction. This complex series of literary strategies can be seen through the character Sister Theodora, as well as through the remarks of Charlemagne, himself. As Sister Theodora writes her tale of the knights’ journeys, she frequently jumps in to speak directly to the audience. One such occurrence is at the end of the novel when it is revealed that Sister Theodora and Bradamante are the same person, when she writes, “yes, my book. Sister Theodora who tells this tale and the Amazon Bradamante are one and the same” (Calvino 140). Calvino writes about a character who writes a story and breaks into it to write about how she writes this story. The many different levels provide all sorts of possible angles of expression that the author may use. It is a great way for Calvino to really show what he thinks about any situation, by breaking this fourth wall, and having Sister Theodora comment on her own tales of adventure. Another aspect of metafiction is that whenever anyone is around Agilulf, it only takes a matter of seconds for any given character to accept that Agilulf is a knight that does not exist, yet has a voice and moves as if he does exist. For example, when Charlemagne first meets Agilulf, he says, “‘Oh yes, yes [. . .] for someone who doesn’t exist, you seem in fine form!’” (Calvino 7). The way that others react to the realization that Agilulf is nothing but armor with a voice is so peculiar, that it is obvious when one does it. If Agilulf were to exist in real life, people would find it impossible to accept what was before them, for it is so unbelievable. Yet, the characters in The Nonexistent Knight seem to feel otherwise. Calvino masterfully crafts each character’s opinion of Agilulf’s existence to show off one of the aspects of metafiction, and therefore of postmodernism as well. The fact that people so easily deal with seemingly outrageous situations shows a reader that not only does a postmodernist see things that were once thought to be true as less valid, but also the postmodernist will see things that were once thought to be ridiculous and intangible as very possible and just as likely as something very common to the reader’s life. Characters do not take long to cope with Agilulf’s strange trait, because they do not see it as entirely peculiar. Charlemagne may joke about it a couple of times, however in the end he still does not take long to accept it, which shows the device of metafiction very efficiently.

Throughout the novel, almost every event, character, relationship, story, or literary device can be analyzed by a reader for its postmodern and metafictional aspects, however the examples used are some of the stronger and more applicable ones. In Calvino’s writing, every single sentence seems to be masterfully crafted to fit the novel and to portray his actual feelings about postmodernism and metafiction. His work is representative of a culture of artists and writers who saw the need for a change in mentality, and took it. The Nonexistent Knight is a wonderfully entertaining novel which also shows the basis of what is seen as a revolution in the artistic and literary culture.

Works Cited

Calvino, Italo. The Nonexistent Knight. Trans. Archibald Colquhoun. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc. 1959. Print.

Shmoop Editorial Team. "Postmodern Literature Characteristics." Shmoop.com. Shmoop  University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.shmoop.com/postmodern-literature/characteristics.html>.