what I'm doing is somewhat selfish, data-jacking-- or at least, "culture-jamming"
the ostensible purpose of the goodreads site, to spread book reviews, and tearing it apart with narcissistic babble about a visa situation,
a one time affair before I begin a year of language study (funding, courtesy, a childless in-law!), and if in places, at least I'm filling in essays about society's mistreatment of artists
, on the other hand, I might just be degenerately (neurotically?) spamming this website out of control. possibly I'll do something moral. maybe that whole Ishiguro affair
that needs spelling out. or possibly I'll try to leave things hanging.
there's so much to do. or so much to spam; narcissistic wise; 7 years of being a professional writer for hire wise; or just philosophizing with my uncompleted masters of philosophy in aesthetics. goodddddddd knows
apparently people don't really mind. have received multiple "likes" on random entries; occasional friend-adds. but if it gets too heady, I can always take a gr-break.
what are some of the undone tasks 28 May 2013
* more commentary on ishiguro
* more commentary on society's mistreatment of writers and artists
* superfluous and surrealistic reviews of surrealistic writers
* essays on Japan and war
* essays on how youthful female skin is a primary determinant of male thinking. "all 17 year old girls are sexually attractive; only some 21 year olds." <-- once declared absolute truth by a scientist who measured these things. the scientist discovered that even really facially-almost disfigured 17 year old girls were able to elicit biological responses out of males, but already by 21, there was some drop off in whether the male responded. it's sciencE!well maybe before all this I should devote something to the idea that this is a bloomsbury group classic, and so deserves its 3/5, although it didn't excite me; it's a girls-book innit
thousands of years of evolution, the human consisting of nomaidic tribes of about 150 people scavenging steppes of eurasia and savannahs of africa, to determine that clear, clear skin implies (a) lack of parasites, (b) nutrition/ high-status, and (c) general youthfulness. and so, in the end, despite all our thoughts that we are an advanced species, really it's all just automatic nervous responses, hormones.
I may be less fixated on this if I just found a girlfriend, but I'm a selfish want-to-spend-cash-on-myself sort of lit major! hahaha, so the results will only be more and more girliness filling up my spamming of the gr website. your loss (?) mine (?) dunno. can't help the heterosexual hormones-- just try a hit of testosterone if you're a girl; you'll understand.
(but shave off the resulting facial hair)
my memories are buried deep in various PhD conversations from philosophy to pure maths. academics / intellectuals, surrounded by jews; surrounded by thinkers. wah
shin sol ki
for this reason or otherwise, I will have to think about those exotic, foreign asians. the appeal is the exotic otherness. although i admit, that whatever time periods i have lived in europe, a certain fondness for the romanian or even pole existed. wonder if I can recover those memories.
i tried to explain it to an american or british woman, but couldn't get them to understand that part of the appeal of a non-anglo saxon woman is that idea that you're engaging in some sort of colonialism. it's about national oppression / imperialism of the bedroom. the american or british woman would just respond, "i don't understand. isn't the kick getting to date the ruler of the universe woman; the unreachable american or brit?" and I wuz like... NOOOOO
your immediate physical reaction to a korean or romanian woman is supplemented by the back of the mind thought that you're ruthlessly stealing away some submissive, weak nation's woman. the weakness or pliability of those cultures is part of the appeal of the person. hard to explain.
part of it is pliability and part of it is the idea that your own template (the westerner) is going to relentlessly correct the docile, submissive female other.
well, in a perverse sort of way, I have expressed my views on virginia wolfe's writings, haven't i
ms woolf, you've unleashed a politicized identity onto the english or american woman's self-identity, and while this is a good thing, it ignores the 80% of human cultures that prize female reserve. the road to greer and beauvoir was first paved by you, and yet the war between the british/american male and the british/american female was begun with the question of whether female emancipation or cross-cultural emanacipation was the greater form of liberalism. unfortunately there is no way out of this conundrum. we must support female liberation in our own english speaking countries, even knowing that this ineffably increases the appeal of the unreconstructed nations' females. we seek that male vision of the infinitely compliant, infinitely willing to please japanese female; that docile wife; that submissive lover. there is no way to solve this issue; it persists to this day, but the increasing rage of british and american women can only be read as an honest reply to the lose-lose outcome of liberationary feminism.
in short, I'm sympathetic to the identity-politics position of non third-position feminism: the idea that there is a distinct body-politic of women in advanced anglo-saxon nations. but the transformation of a retiring, submissive female to the loud, outspoken, standing-up-for-oneself female model comes at the price of elevating the females of culturally-submissive countries.
there can be no resolution of this situation.
I'm not saying--note--that all american and british women are fat, loud whales. what i'm noting is that cultural transformation of gender roles is pushing away american and british men from our own countries' women. the cycle feeds back on each other, and "our culture" degenerates.
of course one defense against this little essay/screed is that I'm picking attractive photos of some foreign cultures against a very average or below average photo of two us or uk women. but whatever. it's just a writer's response to the Room of One's Own Thesis. sayaka isn't asking for one. neither is carmela. that's our world.
stated in plain-spoken terms, the tragedy of bloomsbury was that all the flaws of its reforms did in fact come true, but so did all the flaws of the world without bloomsbury. we are left to inherit only the ragged ends of empire, having seen it in last decades demonstrate a vision of the possible world it could have generated. instead of mucha, however, we got only
tl;dr: it's not clear that the creation of a separate female political identity is a healthy development in a society. in anglo-american cultures in particular, it might be related to higher in-culture stress and morbid obesity. all Woolf wants, is 'a room of one's own,' but is this a deceptively subversive request?