On the way home from work today, out of the corner of my eye, I saw a pigeon being run over by a car. I was listening to music from my discman so I didn’t get to hear it happen very distinctly but there was this kinda snapping of an elastic band like noise. I didn’t see much blood, only it’s wings all over the place. I didn’t stop to investigate further since it was freaking freezing. Still… eep. o_o
While Pocahontas is not on my favourites list, I still remember it to be vaguely entertaining. Also, its theme song, “Colors of the Wind” is a lovely song, melodically speaking. However, at times it makes little sense, both in terms of the lyrics and the part from the movie where it’s sung. Tim and I had a number of spirited discussions about it, and I thought I’d note down the main points we came up with. Below is the clip, and the lyrics can be found here.
Title
Firstly, what’s with the title? Wind doesn’t have colour (even though the wind in the clip IS coloured… doesn’t that make it smoke?). You can’t just slap on a description in front of a thing and have it make sense. It’ll kinda like having a title such as “scent of music” or “sourness of sand”. Does Pocahontas have synesthesia? I’d be happy if the title was just a a metaphor, but what’s it a metaphor of? Towards the end of the song, she talks about the “voices of the mountains” and that’s at least understandable as a metaphor for how wind around mountains may sound melodic to human ears or something. But colours of the wind? It’s incredibly odd that her song would be able the very thing that doesn’t have colour when she could’ve talked about any other physical object around them that do.
“You don’t know”
But still I cannot see
If the savage one is me
Now can there be so much that you don’t know?
You don’t know …
How patronising and INCREDIBLY offensive would it be if it was John Smith saying that to her instead? Imagine if, rather than being set in a lush forest landscape, they were in the middle of a British town and he was showing her stuff around the place while saying lines like that? Maybe replace the words “savage one” with, I dunno, “dumb white man”. I don’t think many people would be happy about that, even though in this context, having Pocahontas saying that to him is seen as being okay. Interesting double standard.
However, I can’t remember what happens before this song, so maybe Smith had previous alluded to being way smarter than Pocahontas or something, and now she’s laying the smack down on him.
Rocks Don’t Have Life
You think you own whatever land you land on
The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim
But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a spirit, has a name
I’m not much into the whole property ownership thing myself. Especially with intellectual property, monopolising information is just WTF to me. I would agree to some extent that owning living things is problematic (especially sentient things); the fact that people are allowed to patent (and hence monopolise the use of) genetic material and microbiological process is just such bad idea for society as a whole. :(
However, while trees and creatures have life, rocks don’t. I don’t know what’s the point of saying that rocks have a life and spirit. And yes, they all have names, but I’m pretty sure the names were given by human beings to these things, regardless of what race of humans we’re talking about. It’s not like the nasty Brits went around pillaging this and that by purposefully not giving those things a name.
Watch Out For Bears!
Around the 0:58 mark on the video, Pocahontas and Smith sees a female bear and follows her to her den full of bear cubs. There, Pocahontas picks up a cuddly lil’ bear and hands it to Smith while the female bear shyly looks on.
In real life, probably even before Pocahontas and Smith reached the mouth of the cave, the mother bear would’ve FUCKING KILLED THEM for trying to go near her cubs. For someone who seems so familiar with nature, you’d think Pocahontas would know how protective mother bears get of her babies. Or maybe the bears in Disney-verse are just so used to human contact that people can just pick up their cubs. Because THAT’S NATURAL. Thanks, Disney. At least you made bears a little bit more realistic in Brother Bear.
Why Did the Grinning Bobcat Cross the Road Grin?
Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grinned?
Pocahontas is implying that possibly the answer is that the bobcat are just happy fellas or something and that the narrow-minded Brits never got it into their arrogant heads to query bobcats of the reasons behind their continuous joy. Even just ignoring the fact that bobcats obviously can’t answer, the more sobering question is, why does she imply that the bobcat WANTS to be grinning? It’s kinda like asking why the Joker is always smiling. Maybe bobcats are actually miserable animals who suffer the additional insult to injury by looking like they’re happy all the time. Or maybe the insult is assuming there’s a point in anthropomorphising them, rather than treating them as animals in their own right without needing to twisted them to fit a list of human traits. Did you ever think of that, Pocahontas?
Eh the rest of the song doesn’t warrant much more critique. It’s a nice point she makes that creatures such as herons and otters are valuable, though I don’t need to call them my friends and family to know they’re worth protecting. I think she might be exaggerating Smith’s narrow-mindedness (I certainly don’t remember him being the racist that she paints him to be in the song), but still, yay for advocating diversity. :) As I said, I like the song, it’s nice to listen to. Still, kinda silly in some parts. :P
Life
Not much has been going on, gave in my huge assignments. My Intellectual Property assignment was left to the last minute AGAIN, and even staying up all night, it turned out all shitty anyway. Tim said it’s not bad when he helped proof read it for me, but we all know he’s just trying to make me feel better. :3 I need to get my Gardasil booster and maybe a blood test too, the perpetual tiredness is still bugging me.
Watched
On the night before my Corporate Law assignment was due, rather than working on it, I instead watched the documentary The Dying Room that’s basically an undercover report on orphanages in China. It’s well worth watching, though incredibly depressing. All the children in the orphanages were girls (except for a small number of handicapped boys). The living conditions in the state orphanages were absolutely appalling, with toddlers being literally tied to chairs to keep them from moving around. The looks of lifeless boredom in many of their eyes as they rock back and forth was absolutely horrible.
One of the commentators interviewed blamed the One Child policy for the huge numbers of baby girls being left in the streets because their families don’t want them. While the policy no doubt exacerbated the problem, the real problem is 1) the cultural disregard for the sacredness of human life and 2) the treatment of women as second class citizens. My mother once said that the more people there are, the more expendable they are. When we’re dealing with more than a billion of people, I guess it is easier and easier to think of people as just a number.
In regard to sexism, it’s kinda weird. In modern times, every since the Cultural Revolution, it at least seems that there is more of an equality between genders. I’ve seen a number of women in parliament in China, and women are encouraged to work as much as men. But watching that documentary, female children are despised whereas male children are infinitely more desirable. This can’t be just an anomalous finding as generally speaking, there’s already way too many men in China because of people’s persistent desire to have male children over female. It frustrates me beyond words that there’s no movement in China to counter the mind-numbingly stupid cultural traditions of how women ought to be viewed and treated. It’s probably better now in the city areas of China at least but it is problematic that the idea that women are not as good as men are allowed to be trickle through.
Oh and yesterday I watched Moulin Rouge. I’ve never seen it before, and wow, talk about disappointing! :P I first heard the soundtrack from a friend when it was released and I quite like the songs on it. But watching it was excruciating at parts, the acting was bad and the choice of song was at times just bizarre (“Smells Like Teen Spirit”? Really, Baz Luhrmann, was that necessary?). And this is coming from someone who generally like musicals.
I finished watching xxxHOLiC, I have a review of it up. I watched the beginning of the first episode of Code Geass, but so far, the story hasn’t really sucked me in. I’m really not very into political conflict type anime. But yay, CLAMP artwork.
Games
I watched Tim play Portal (well the beginning and end, I fell asleep halfway through). It’s an awesome game to even watch. The finale was one of the most memorable I’ve ever seen, just in how funny GLaDOS is. I love the taunts she’d throw at you, oh and her ending song is just fabulous. More games should put emphasis on their scripts! The game itself looked fun to play, but given how un-coordinated and crappy at spatial tasks I am, I think I’m a little too intimidated to play it.
Site stuff
I finished this a little while ago. Mwaha, yay the Pucca fanlisting is finally mine! :D Heh, I love that little broad. Yeah, the layout isn’t very good, but I was in a hurry and I had a huge brain freeze. Why is it that I use image rollovers whenever I make bad layouts? Spin has also finally gotten an update after 11 months of no activity. I’ve got a bunch of other site updates that I need to make as well.
Right now, what I should be doing are my Uni readings though. Bah.
I’ve grumbled (incessantly) in the past, of how silly, irrational and down-right contradictory some laws are. However this evening I found a copy of the judgement to Baby v Maryland, a rape case appeal from Maryland, USA, which made me metaphorically throw up a bit in my mouth. The whole thing is accessible here, but since it’s 51 pages, I’ll point out the main bits. Note that this case was decided in 2006. That’s last year.
The following is the judge deciding when withdrawing consent before, during and after sexual intercourse is considered rape. He cites the case of Battle v State first, specifically where the judge in that case had said (on page 26):
“The authorities are unanimous in the view that consent subsequent to the act of intercourse will not prevent its being rape.”
Okay fair enough. If two people have had consensual sex, it’s simply illogical to say you withdraw consent to something that has already happened. But from there, the judge in that case made the logic-defying leap to conclude that (on page 29):
“On the other hand, ordinarily if she consents prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape.”
WHAT THE FUCK. The judge is basically saying, “because we’ve decided there’s no rape if you consented after sex ended, then it’s also not rape if you consented once sex has started”. The sheer misunderstanding of how sex and people work is mind-boggling. Sex is not a rollercoaster; it’s not like once you get on you have no option to get off (no pun intended!). If a party doesn’t want to keep going once it’s started, then the act ought to stop. If it doesn’t, then it should be considered rape. Because these cases deal with women who get raped, there appears to be this frightening assumption of some kind that men who have sex with women simply CAN’T stop, or more disturbingly, SHOULDN’T have to stop, having sex once it’s started.
But okay, the Battle v State case WAS decided in the 1980s and well MAYBE one can argue that back then things were simply more conservative and the idea that women aren’t objects isn’t as wide spread as it is today. But for some reason Baby v Maryland, the 2006 case, decides to follow Battle v State. After quoting Battle v State (above), this 2006 case goes on to say (on page 31-32):
The concept, undergirding the Battle holding, rooted in ancient laws and adopted by the English common-law, views the initial “de-flowering” of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensation, in legal contemplation, the injured party – the father or husband… But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male’s interest in a woman’s sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be “re-flowered,” that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet, having adopted the common law, which remains the law of the Land until and unless changed by the State’s highest court or by statute.
*heaves*
*head explodes*
I… just… wow. Ladies and gentlemen, let me state this again; the above quote came from a judgement in 2006. It’s asserting that just because “ancient laws” (the footnotes, BTW, say that the “ancient laws” they refer to are ancient Assyrian laws) dictate that:
this should apply to the women in Maryland, USA, in the 21st century. I’ll let you mull over that.
The case actually then goes on to list a bunch of cases that goes against such sentiment and that such reasonings are “archaic and unrealistic” (page 34) and that there are “only three decisions which appear to hold that prior consent vitiates post penetration withdrawal of consent” with one of the cases being Battle v State (page 35). Nonetheless, the judge in Baby v Maryland decides to apply Battle anyway, with the incredibly feeble justification that:
“It is currently a statement of Maryland law, that has neither been overruled nor commented upon negatively.”
Now I know that following precedent is a big thing in law, i.e. that cases need to follow previous case law that has been decided by a higher court. But this is just ridiculous. The fact that the judge in Baby v Maryland went so far as to cite Assyrian law just to justify why continuing with sexual intercourse after the other party has withdrawn consent is NOT rape is so revoltingly sexist, it’s terrifying and makes me so angry. This above decision is on appeal (link curtesy of Feministing) to the highest court in Maryland, and fingers crossed that the previous judgement would be overturned.
Ack sorry for the lack of blogging, but recently my life has revolved around:
- Doing assignments
- Worrying about assignments
- Anime (more below)
- Procrastinating from assignments
Not exactly something that’s worth recounting in detail, never mind having to read it.
I have a question, what can one do about coarse hair tips? My hair is getting relatively longish; and about the bottom inch of it feels very rough. I don’t get tangles and I don’t use conditioner (that stuff is expensive!). Most of my hair feels okay, but for some reason the tips feel all bristly. Is it the lack of conditioning? Stress? Diet? Gah I should just cut it all off. Just in time for summer too, perhaps.
As for anime, I’ve been watching Blood+ (I have all of it now, yay!) and xxxHOLiC. I’ve been struggling to retain interest in the former, I think more drawn-out, serious/political/army-related anime isn’t quite to my taste. Maybe it’ll get better. The latter, however, I’ve enjoyed quite a bit. I shall put up a review of it after I’m done, I’m about 16 episodes into this 24 episode anime.
Currently visiting: A Feminist Critique of Animation – Yay two interesting topics in crossed together: animation and feminism. I just started reading some of the articles (I wish they wouldn’t go in pop ups though). There goes the next hour, most likely.
P.S. Who remembers layouts/sites with the section called “omake” being the miscellaneous section? That used to be huge a few years ago, but I just noticed that it’s just about all been phased out.
Recent Comments