1. From a letter:
I know two people who would have been called counterculture in the 60s or "hipsters" five years ago. They were in an indie band in high school and were devoted to music as a way of life and not just a hobby. One of them no longer plays music - perhaps because of modern cultural nihilism.Emphasis mine. Because that is just so ridiculous. What on Earth does that mean? "Well, I used to be in a band, but then there was all this modern cultural nihilism so I'm not anymore." Well, I think we all owe modern cultural nihilism a big thanks. Don't rest, modern cultural nihilism! There are plenty more crappy bands to break up!
2. Another letter:
"Sexism being the cause of a problem? Unlikely! My analysis reveals that it is the fault of ... capitalism! The same thing I've already decided is responsible for every problem. Conveniently, this affects men just as much as women! No such thing as multiple causes for one problem, by the way. Oh, and sexism in the past? Relatively widespread." In case you couldn't guess, this was written by a man.
Shonagh Strachan's article on the cruelties of modern childbirth is retrograde insofar as she places blame on the "modern patriarchal institutionalized world," "capitalist patriarchy" and "misogynistic forces." Her final statement precisely identifies the cause of traumatic birthing procedures as a patriarchal fear of female empowerment. This sort of thing was demonstrably true, and relatively widespread, a generation or two ago. But today, Strachan's argument is unlikely.
The far likelier cause of traumatic birthing processes is the particular breed of capitalism that we have and the way it positions profit over people or, in this case, patients. C-sections, like any other surgery, are far more lucrative than straight vaginal births. This profit-driven dynamic shows up all over the health industry and adversely affects females and males alike. So, put blame where blame is due - the capitalist exploitation of our bodies.
3. From an essay:
About 2 years ago, a friend showed me a daily agenda she'd picked up from an anarchist collective in Edmonton. I scanned over the "tips for dropping out of the economy" list and immediately rejected most of them as too radical and hardly conducive to my student life. One of the tips, however, was extremely simple and definitely within my capabilities: to black out logos and brand names from various advertisements around campus with an indelible black marker.
"Wow, all of these ideas are just too hard. I will pick the absolute easiest one, which is also, of course, the one that doesn't cost me money or much time and does absolutely nothing to help anyone. What a great choice! I am so proud of myself that I will publish an essay about it."
4. The issue announces the "greedy pig of the year." And it's "the first-world consumer." That's quite some nerve, since that is, by definition, 99% of the people who read Adbusters. Is purchasing Adbusters, an object that is produced with physical resources like paper and ink and then sold in grocery stores for $9 not an act of consumption? Is Adbusters (again, $9) not a luxury item?
5. Okay, and Adbusters is, by definition, anti-advertisement, right? It's all about busting those ads? And it's anti-consumption? So, how exactly does Adbusters advertise itself? There's a subscription card inside (gasp! it's printed on paper! I sure hope that was recycled paper!) that says: "Join the groundswell of radical change. Subscribe online at adbusters." i.e. "Join the groundswell of radical change by buying this product." There's also an ad inside with "tools for activists" that you can purchase, including: "The Magazine. Become a core member of the movement." I'm so glad that becoming a core member of the movement is as easy as an act of consumption. Whoops, Adbusters markets itself just like everything else.
Don't worry, I told Santa that next year I want my own People Magazine instead of Adbusters.
No comments:
Post a Comment