http://www.theonion.com/article/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does-1398
Jun 05 2017
Business in Denial
‘We’re just providing what the market, what people, demand.’ ‘The customer is squarely in the driver’s seat.’ Yeah right. Gosh, shucks, don’t-look-at-me.
One, I doubt that’s true. I mean, if people really wanted your product, you wouldn’t (have to) spend millions on advertising, advertising to persuade them to buy it. Supply isn’t (just) following demand; demand is (also) following supply. Your supply. You’re in the driver’s seat.
Two, even if it is true, that people do want it, I find it hard to believe that someone with enough whatever to get into positions of power, decision-making positions, would be so meekly obedient to the desires, the demands, of the common people.
Or so helpless: ‘demands’ is such loaded language, implying that resistance, your resistance, is futile, implying that you are without power here.
Or so spineless – as if you have no mind, no desire, no will of your own.
Please, have the guts, the maturity, to take responsibility for your actions. You have a choice. You produce/provide what you do because you choose to, because you want to. If you are acceding to market demands – and I have no doubt that you are – it’s because it’s profitable, it’s because (you think) it’s in your best interests. You ‘want to make it easy for the customer to do business with [you]’ because business with you is business for you. Customers are a means to your end of profit. Otherwise you’d be as interested in poverty management as you are in wealth management.
‘Our shareholders demand high returns.’ Another pass-the-buck denial of responsibility. One, again, I doubt that’s strictly true. Did you ask them all? And was their response fully informed? Were they aware that their high returns come at the expense of others? (Others’ low wages, loss of employment; others’ high prices, loss of choice through monopoly; environmental degradation; etc.)
And two, even if they do, again, do you have to obey them? Of course not. Unless – and here’s the all important hidden (by you, from you) assumption – unless you want the value of your company to be ‘high’ so people will give you money. There’s that self-interest again.
‘Return on equity is an important measure of our success.’ Not the amount of good one does, not the amount of happiness one creates, no, these things don’t matter; success isn’t even justice, isn’t getting back what one puts out, no, success is how much more one gets back than one puts out. Self-interest. Literally, interest. For the self. It’s egoism, pure and simple. And childish and dangerous. I don’t think ‘society as a whole’ is in the vocabulary. The total inability to recognize, let alone deal with, the moral dimension – i.e., the consideration of others – is frightening.
And the ego knows no satisfaction. ‘From start-up to growth.’ The life cycle of a business seems to stop there. At growth. And more growth. And more growth. Excuse me? What about stasis? What about decline? They are part of the entire life cycle. Only a cancer grows and grows and grows.
May 28 2017
The Hook (Up) – a short script by Peg Tittle
FADE IN:
INT. BAR — NIGHT
Crowded bar scene. MAN and WOMAN do the standard flirting thing, he buys her a drink, they dance, then exit. Their dialogue isn’t important — the bar’s too loud for us to hear much anyway. But it’s clear that both are willing to engage in the sex that follows.
INT. APARTMENT — LATER
They enter her apartment and move through it toward the bedroom, happily and heatedly, kissing, touching, and unbuttoning each other on the way.
INT. BEDROOM — CONTINUOUS
They are on the bed, then in the bed, which has a nightstand right beside it, then while intercourse is clearly occurring —
WOMAN
So, do you want a girl or a boy?
He stops mid-thrust.
MAN
What?
He pulls out. Grimaces at his limpness.
WOMAN
Well, you aren’t using any contraception, so it stands to reason you want a child. I mean, you must know that —
(she gestures vaguely)
MAN
(rolling off her; things are clearly over)
Of course I know — No, I don’t want a kid —
He’s up and dressing.
MAN (CONT’D)
I assumed you were —
WOMAN
Pretty important thing to just take for granted, isn’t it?
MAN
(his anger increasing)
What is this, some sort of trap?
WOMAN
Not at all. I’m okay with it. I mean, I’ll charge for incubation services, $50,000 is about standard, and then give you the kid, no strings —
MAN
I don’t want a kid!
WOMAN
Then why —
MAN
Because you’re the one who gets pregnant!
WOMAN
I realize that. And as I said, I’m okay with it. If you’re the one not okay with it, if you’re the one who doesn’t want this to be reproductive sex, then you’re the one who should be using contraception.
He says nothing as he continues to dress.
WOMAN (CONT’D)
Are you usually this adept at separating cause and effect? At not looking at the consequences of your actions?
He reaches for his jacket.
WOMAN (CONT’D)
I mean, if you and a friend do a B & E together and he’s the only one who gets caught, you’re okay with that? You’d really not consider yourself equally responsible?
MAN
(quite angry now)
I’d consider myself lucky. Bitch!
He strides out of the bedroom.
WOMAN
(cheerily)
I’ll call you!
May 28 2017
What’s Wrong with Power (a few preliminary thoughts)
The thing about power (power over others, that is, not power over oneself) is that it can interfere with the other’s freedom of choice. But it does so only if they use that power, you may wish to clarify. So people should simply not use their power over others; they should not even show they have it.
Well no, the thief doesn’t have to use the gun in order to interfere with my choice of giving or not giving her my money. Simply having the power to shoot me affects my decision. But, you’ll counter, other people always have some sort of power over you – the thief may not even have the gun with him. (Yeah, it’s usually a him.)
Correct. In fact, he may not even own a gun. He need only have the power to buy (and then use) the gun. In fact, a gun need not even be involved. He could run into me with her car. The bottom line is that everyone has the power to do something harmful, something hurtful, to everyone else. Therefore, everyone’s freedom of choice is limited in some way. And that’s all there is to this point: there is no such thing as complete freedom of choice – all of our decisions are made in a context of possible, or probable, consequences.
But there’s something here of importance: the difference between possible and probable. Surely we give more weight to the latter. Harm is more probable if the thief has a gun pointed to my head than if he has yet to even buy one.
And there’s another point of importance: there is a difference between constraint and coercion. Constraint becomes coercion only when the person would’ve chosen otherwise had the constraints not been there. That is to say, if I would’ve given my money to you anyway, your power over me is not coercion, it is not controlling me.
And interestingly enough, control is not dependent on the intentional use of power by the other. Just as often it is one’s own judgement, which may well be incorrect, of the probability of harm that controls one’s behaviour.
Having power over others, others having power over us – these are facts of life. The easy part is distinguishing constraint from coercion; the tricky part distinguishing possible from probable. But our freedom of choice depends on these distinctions.
May 21 2017
Sex, like Religion / Religion, like Sex
What do Madonna, Prince, and Leonard Cohen have in common – with evangelists, ministers, and priests? They all feed on the proximity of religion and sex.
But, but, you stutter, don’t religions mostly prohibit sex, considering pretty much anything to do with the body to be distasteful or unclean or just plain immoral? Well, yes. Could be hypocrisy. Could be denial.
But on more than one occasion, doesn’t God in The Bible require the sacrifice of a virgin? And look at St. Theresa’s face – it’s orgasmic.
So what can religion and sex possibly have in common? Well, they both promise transcendence, ecstasy. (They both fail to deliver, but that’s another point.)
What else? Religion is like infatuation (which is fuelled by sexual desire): both involve adoration, worship, of the object of one’s desire. Add a little confusion and pretty soon one deifies the object of one’s desire or desires the object of one’s deification.
And both religion and sex involve salvation: one looks to God like one does to a lover, for salvation in the other’s arms. (They both fail to – never mind.)
Furthermore, sex involves a release, a purging if you like – rather like fasting, or confessing and then doing penance. Again, one gets confused with the other, and pretty soon sex is thought to purify. I’m sure that’s what all those priests thought when they had sex with those boys.
The extremes of sadomasochism and bondage and discipline highlight the similarities between sexual fanatics and religious fanatics. More than one saint has submitted to flagellation, by self or by others. Isn’t every monk given a hairshirt and every nun her own little whip? Suppose things aren’t exactly consensual – well, it’s no coincidence that ‘rape’ and ‘rapture’ come from the same root.
And to kneel in prostration is to put one’s ass in the air – I’m ready, enter me, oh Great One.
May 14 2017
Gender and Sex
Gender and Sex
Do you know the difference?
Do you understand the consequences of getting them mixed up?
Do you understand the consequences of thinking they’re related?
May 14 2017
Size Matters – a short film collage
Size Matters, Peg TIttle
What if women were the taller sex? I suggest that this would make a difference in the power relationship between men and women. Ask any short man.
This short film is a five‑minute (approximately) collage of scenes from ordinary life. That is, ordinary life reversed ‑ one in which women are taller than men.
So every woman in the film must be taller than every man, except where specified; on average, the men should be 5’4″ and the women 5’10”. (Tap into women’s basketball and volleyball teams and men’s figure skating clubs and dance companies for extras.)
This is a silent film, though clearly dialogue is going on.
It is of utmost importance that the actors’ carriage not undermine the height difference. It should be mandatory for all actors to take a cross‑gender acting workshop.
For that reason, a woman should be director. Most women, more than most men, tend to be more aware of the nuances of body language that mark dominance and subordination. A woman director would thus be more apt to ask the actors to make the necessary corrections.
SCENES:
- The halls, classroom, and grounds of an elementary school: all the teachers are male; the principal is female; students are shown mostly in all‑girl and all‑boy groupings; when the group is mixed, boys and girls are the same height; all are engaged in gender‑neutral activities (I know that young girls play house and young boys fight, but showing this would confuse the point; young girls and boys also sit at their desks, stand around talking, walk down the hall, chase each other, etc.)
- A cafe: all the staff waiting on customers are male, as is the cashier.
- At home, in the kitchen: as she’s on the phone with an important call, she absently reaches to get something out of a high cupboard for a child, then does the same for him (he could’ve reached, but it’d be a stretch ‑ it’s just an easy reach for her, no big deal.
- At the office, in the lobby: a cluster of women executives walk in on their way to their offices; they nod or ignore male subordinates at reception.
- A dinner date: a man and a women are finishing dinner and the cheque is presented to her.
- Hospital admissions area: the nursing and clerical staff are male; the doctor walking past is female.
- The halls, classroom, and grounds of a high school: all the teachers are male; the principal is female; students are shown in situations somewhat similar to the elementary school scene, but now the girls are taller than the boys.
- A male‑female couple walking down the sidewalk: she takes longer strides than he does, so he has to walk more quickly; in fact, he has to half‑run to keep up, like a child (and perhaps he hobbles on platform shoes); the way they hold hands, she seems to be leading him, and is always just a tad ahead of him.
- At home, at dinner time: she and the older, taller daughter are at the table; the younger, shorter son enters from the kitchen carrying something, followed by the husband carrying something (nothing special, it’s just routine dinner time).
- Crowd scenes: these are sprinkled throughout the rest of the film, but it is imperative that they not begin about half way through so the viewers see the effect first (power relationship reversals) and only later the cause (only in the crowd scenes does it become really clear that women are taller than men in this world).
- At the office: a woman in her own office is engaged in serious business as a male secretary slips in with a message and a cup of coffee for her.
- Various offices at a university: most of the faculty are women (shown in classrooms or in their private offices); most of the admin and support staff are male (shown at desks in a more public area).
- A male‑female couple dancing: she leads.
- Hospital operating room: the surgeon and anaesthetist are women; the nurses are men.
- At home, in the living room: she’s in the larger of two chairs, reading the paper; she lifts her feet up off the footstool so he can run a vacuum cleaner between the chair and footstool.
- A male‑female couple posing for a picture: her arm is around his shoulders.
- A courtroom: the judge is a woman; the clerk is a man.
- At the office, in a meeting room (all of the women must be taller even when seated): the seven or eight women present are talking and deciding; the one or two men present sit silent, taking notes; a man half raises his hand for permission to speak, but is unacknowledged; a man reaches over to fill a woman’s water glass before filling his own, not because he was asked to do so but just as a matter of routine (the subordinate attends to the superordinate’s needs).
- A male‑female couple approaches a car; the woman gets into the driver’s seat; the man gets into the passenger seat.
- Election campaign shots: all candidates are women; the men are in the background and clearly aides.
May 08 2017
To all the men who
To all the men who let their mothers and wives do all the dusting, vacuuming, kitchen wiping, and bathroom scrubbing; to all the men who throw their garbage out of their cars and boats and ATVs and snowmobiles; and to all the men who ‘externalize’ the waste/disposal costs involved in doing (their) business — because it’s somehow emasculating to clean up after yourself, YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR DEFINITION OF ‘MASCULINE’. Because at the moment it’s very much like ‘infantile’ and ‘irresponsible’.
fiction
